The following was extracted directly from the front page of Washington Trout's website:

I am offering this in the context of the best salmon fishing season I have seen in many years with more wild fish showing up than in recent memory. Washington Trout is a radical animal rights extremist organization bent on closing all the hatcheries in Washington and other states. The newest weapon they are employing is the review process granted to them as a result of the "settlement" of the lawsuit they filed against WDFW, the director of WDFW and the members of the WDFW commission. The settlement resulted in a big cash payday for WT and gave them a new way to try to force their narrow agenda on the rest of us. Their conclusions are thinly veiled as based on a comprehensive review but their conclusions are the same as their predetermined "cause"..close all hatcheries to save wild fish...or so they claim. I claim that WT is not a fishing organization but an animal rights group of left wing radicals who ultimately would like to close all fishing except catch and release fly fishing from kayaks or from shore.

Here is what their website says on the front page:


Washington Trout Comments on WDFW Puget Sound HGMPs



On August 1, a six-week public comment period ended for 79 salmon and steelhead Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans (HGMPs) developed by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for submission to the National Marine Fisheries Service. Washington Trout prepared and submitted comments regarding HGMPs for WDFW’s chinook, coho, and steelhead hatchery programs in Puget Sound. We found the HGMPS inadequate to warrant ESA authorization, and recommended that WDFW withdraw them for significant revision, and/or consider scaling back or discontinuing its Puget Sound hatchery program.



After reviewing all the chinook HGMPs and all the coho and steelhead HGMPs, WT identified several general concerns that run throughout all or many of the documents. These include our assessment that:

In general, the HGMPs fail to adequately describe clear program goals, justifications, performance standards and indicators, or adequately detailed monitoring and evaluation protocols or timetables;
A number of erroneous and/or unsupported assumptions run throughout the HGMPs;
Many of the HGMPs contain critical deficiencies and omissions;
There is a consistent failure to quantify, as required, the estimated take of listed Puget Sound chinook;
The overall size of the chinook hatchery program in Puget Sound is far too large with respect to any reasonable “acceptable levels” of competition, predation, and related genetic and ecological impacts upon indigenous wild chinook;
The overall size of the coho and steelhead hatchery programs in Puget Sound are far too large with respect to any reasonable “acceptable levels” of competition, predation, and ecological impacts upon indigenous wild chinook;
The HGMPs are often in direct conflict with critical elements of WDFW’s own Wild Salmonid Policy.

Grandpa I have 2 questions for you..

! did you read any of the HGMP's?

2. if you did read them what specifics did WDFW lay down as things they would do to protect the endangered runs of wild Puget Saound Chinook???

I read the HGMP's and found them astoundingly vague. There is nothing specific that WDFW is planning on doing to rectify anyof the KNOWN problems with their hatcheries.

I would suggest that you know nothing about WT or it's membership. You only base your opinions of false assumptions of who these people are and what they want.

WT should just stop B******g and compromise on everyone's standards; not their own. They should just let us catch the hatchery fish and release all wild fish, which is going to happen in the next few years anyway.

washington trout can only try to make the state obide by the rules that were set for hatcheries within the esa system, they cant close any, i would say your problem isnt with washington trout its with the people who wrote the rules that they are trying to make the state follow, why dont you do some research and find out why the rules were put there in the first place, oh ya, i know why, so everyone could ingore them

Rob Allen Listen UP!!!

Your opinions above all others on this board are , in my opinion, not worth listening to. You are the most diehard WT supporter next to Ramon. Your views are radical, extreme and filled with anger for your opponents. Your vision of fishing is narrow and self-serving.

My view is that salmon are on the rebound slow but sure and spending so much time trying to tear down a system and ultimately eliminate it while draining taxpayer money in the process to support your selfish cause is shameful and worthy of scorn by all sensible people.

Obviously I don't agree with your socialist views and your elitist attitude when it comes to fishing. I strongly disagree with WT and that group's disguise of their real goals which are not noble but very selfish.

Again I say to you and all of the WT elite: Go salmon fishing and see for yourself why I say this is one of the best years in memory for returning salmon, wild and hatchery.

No ...fishing with a fly rod for hatchery trout at a private boutique C&R fishing hole or private ranch doesn't count.

Went right over your head huh Boater? If WT was really in the business of trying to improve hatcheries I would listen but they are unabashedly on a campaign to close them ALL down. Just my opinion.....

Grandpa

Thank you for totally ignoreing my honest questions. Also you don't know anything about me or my politics. I am most defenitly not a socialist and resent being called that as a small business owner.
You are alsi mischarecterizing what WT wants. WT wants there to be salmon for the distant future.. The science is cryatal clear that the only way that will happen is if wild fish stocks are restored hatchery fish cannot and have never done it.
Your charecterization of WT would be like me charecterizing PSA as a group that only cares about pumping out as many hatchery fish as possible so sport anglers can harvest as many as they want.. I don't charecterize them that way because i know that in not how their membership feels. Likewise Washington Trout isn't about closing hatcheries it's about saving the few wild fish left in the state!!

While your gloating about how great this years salmon runs have been and tearing down Washington Trout down here in Southwest washington we are having absolutely terrible returns of both wild and hatchery summer steelhead this on the heels of the worst winter run in recent years. Meanwhile Washington Trout is working in cooperation with angling groups to restore salmon habitat on the Washougal river..

before you wrongfully badmouth WT I wanna know what you are doing to help salmon?? But if you'd like to put your money where your mouth is meet me on the East Fork Lewis next Saturday morning bring a shovel and a wheelbarrow.

Rob thanks for not calling me an idiot..you're making progress on the anger thing. Let's just say I totally disagree with you about your politics and your stand on opposing hatcheries. I disagree about WT's motives and don't believe a word you say in defense of them... and I am talking about salmon fishing so the topic of steelhead /trout has not come up from me. Lots of evidence on the this board of fantastic salmon fishing in your area this summer ...I bet the fish will fill the rivers this fall..unless too many are netted. Maybe if your steelhead were not commercially harvested both on purpose and as bycatch their stocks would rebound too. I have first hand experience this summer of releasing 5 to one wild over hatchery salmon as well.

Your wild only boutique fishing idea is just bunk. Sorry but that's the way I see it.

Washington Trout is ALL ABOUT closing hatcheries. To say it isn't is dishonest.

I support Washington Trout, and the destruction of all hatcheries, or the reform of those hatcheries so that wild fish are not harmed.

Long live the wild salmon and steelhead! Long May they Run!

WT is full of .... !!! Let take a look at the Blackmouth Program... the State was suppose to reach a goal of releasing 3M juvenile Chinook a year by 2000. As a matter of fact, we have only hit 2M in the last 3 years. Now budget cuts, probably due to the settlement, closed 2 big hatcheries in the South Sound. McCallister Creek- released 300,000 juveniles a year-gone. Couple this with Percival Cove not being able to renew the pollution permit and we have a total of 500K. This is 25% of the entire program throughout the Puget Sound! BS! The Coulter Creek hatchery also closed.. a main staple of South Sound Silvers...

Predation? Marine mammals- it is a big problem already and going to get worse. It has already left a big dent in the herring stocks! That statement is far from the truth WT..

If anything, the hatcheries have made a huge impact for sport/commercial fishing the last couple years. Especially with the US/Canadian agreement... Look at the numbers! It is black and white.

What is WT going to do when we don't have any fish left to catch? Who going to support you? I probably take up knitting!

I have no opinion regarding WT's ultimate objective, be it saving wild salmon or closing hatcheries.... But.... if they are really concerned about saving wild salmon and steelhead, they need to focus a lot more on the nets (tribal and non-tribal).
I have witnessed so many wild steelhead and salmon taken with these nets in the Columbia River. It is just unimaginable that an endangered species would be allowed to be netted and groups like WT remain silent on that, but not other destructive practices.

MC

DR.....You should write to Tony Floor, formerly with the WDFW and now with NW Marine Trade Association. He is very knowledgeable on the reasons for the situation with the Puget Sound blackmouth program's decline.

In all fairness to WT, they have in the past worked on decreasing the gill net devastation to our fish runs. They have also worked on habitat related issues and programs.

While WT is apparently hell-bent on closing our hatcheries supposedly to save wild fish the sportsmen and women of this state have proven their ability to catch and release wild fish this summer. Thanks, in part to Norm Dicks, we have an expanded mass marking program that is working well,too. We have also had some good luck with the ocean conditions which have helped fish runs tremendously. Programs to reduce the commercial fleet have been showing results in lowering harvest. Canada and the US settled disputes and have implemented fishing restrictions that have resulted in much higher returns in the last two years especially.

Abolishing all the hatcheries like WT wants is an extreme measure as suing WDFW to get their own way was an extreme measure.. Wild fish will not miraculously rebound if that happens any more than removing all the dams will. Removing all the people from Washington and shipping us all to Idaho would help. Tearing down all the freeways and houses and factories and schools would help too. Should we do that next? To save "wild" fish?

Instead of reading the paper this morning I read the 100 page report put together by Washington Trout in response to the WDFW proposed HGMPs to NMFS. All their studies and inspections of the hatcherys mirtaculously came to the same conclusions that WT had in the first place.Imagine that! WOW.

Here is a snippet from Ramon's term paper:

" The HGMP's consistently fail to discuss why it is socially, economically or biologically necessary , advisable, or even beneficial to provide fish for harvest..."

Nice job Ramon

Pretty much sums it up doesn't it? No need to provide fish for harvest.

If all of youse people can keep this a civil discussion (like no name calling or left wing/right wing politics) I would love to leave this up. Remember that just because somebody disagrees with you, it doesn't make them wrong

Jerry

Thanks for the warning....I know you tend to side with Ramon and WT..or atleast I think you do so letting the discussion go on would be good. If someone disagrees with me I can think they are wrong but agree that they are not difinitively wrong...remember that most of this is opinion. Except for the part about the fishing this summer which I hope you can agree was and still is phenomenal.

Looks like its time for another round of boycott letters to the WT suporters. The list is still on there website.

Grandpa this hasn't been a discussion.. It's been you just going off on Washington Trout.. if you want this to be a discussion read my first post and answer the questions.

I fell this statement from WT, mentioned a couple posts ago, says it all:

The HGMP's consistently fail to discuss why it is socially, economically or biologically necessary , advisable, or even beneficial to provide fish for harvest..."


Who are these guys anyway? Washington State is not known for trout fishing like , Montana is. Washington State is known for spectacular salmon fishing and there is no way this fishing can support the harvest it does without hatchery supplementation.

I guess WT exists so as to make trout fishing better. Are they making trout fishing better?

This year by far has been the best year for me ever in terms of catching Kings in the few areas that are open that I have fished, Area 11 and Tulalip Bubble. I am greatful that the fishing seems to be turning the corner. There's no way that those areas would be open were it not for hatcheries. So all you WT supporters just keep in mind that basically your calling for eliminating the few remaining opportunities for sports fisherman like myself who relish catching salmon in Puget Sound.

Better look at that quote more closely and not read anything into it. Which you are all doing.

Now i am not saying that WT wants hatcheries to operate as they have been for decades ( very little has changed).. But that quote does not say what you are saying it does. It is not saying there is no benefit for providing fish for harvest. It is saying that the HGMP's are so vague that they do not even suggest any benefit..
Any way you slice it these HGMP's are extremely bad and totally imcomplete. They are vague and describe nothing that WDFW is willing to do to help puget sounds endangered wild chinook!!!

Washington Trout would be 100% satisfied if WDFW could run their hatcheries without posing a threat to the survival of wild chinook..
WT would be off the back of WDFW if they wouod just do theri jobs and come up with legit plans to do what they are obligated by law to do!!!

Rob Allen,
Grandpa answered you in post #5 of this thread and I couldnt agree with him more.
As usual YOUR the one that "goes off"on people and starts the name calling. I have seen more threads closed after YOU start posting in them than anyone else here. There are places that can help you with anger managment classes. Try Western State Hospital if that dosent work for you maybe the Rainier School in Buckley can do the job.

Ok, all this talk about hatcheries and wild fish recovery misses the point entirely.

Don't get me wrong I do believe this may be the best salmon year in two decades, but that is due to outstanding marine conditions, not a sudden resolution of the dilema facing wild fish.

Probably, the other big issue causing increased catches in washington this year is that the canadian commericial troll fleet can't fish off of Vancouver Island (where a lot of our fish grow up) because of their coho recovery efforts. Something to bear in mind next time the canada-US salmon treaty comes up for renegotiation.

What has laid wild salmon popluations low in this state is habitat destruction ie siltation, channelization of streambeds, damming, irrigation, water quality issues, low water due to human usage etc. etc.

For wild salmon to recover, we need to address these habitat issues and these are long term issues. Sure, overfishing, hatchery wild interactions, all that does happen, but salmon can recovery in a very few generations from such insults--they undergo extreme selective pressures during their lifecycle. Look at places with pristine habitat like alaska and you have some hatcheries and overfishing from time to time, but the salmon bounce back quickly. Why? because the habitat is intact.

I think as long as there are serious habitat problems, we will need hatcheries where those problems exist if we want to have salmon fisheries. I guess that is the debate here.

At best hatcheries are only tangential to the issue of wild salmon recovery.

If we want wild salmon to be around for the future, we need to address the habitat issues.

Habitat is the key!

Geoduck

There are a lot of people smarter than me on this issue, but my gut feeling is exactly what Goeduck stated above.

I grew up near Chimacum Creek in Port Townsend Bay, and saw how habitat loss effects a small stream first hand. Chimacum Creek is an example of an area where the local, State, Private and Federal sectors have all responded with a goal to restore habitat, and slowly the fish population has grown. Then when the ocean conditions improved, the runs really made progress.

I think of this as a window of opportunity, and we have to do all we can while the ocean survival rate is strong. Unfortunatly, some streams are not worth putting the money into, as they are way too far gone.

I applaud all the good points made about how diverse the problem of salmon survival is to us all. Many factors contribute to loss and recovery.

Just a side note: I used to work at Rainier School in Buckley and that is a great suggestion as a place to help anyone with a behavior problem. The facility is geared to severe problems and they even have padded cells.

Grandpa, for the last time I do not side with WT, nor do I side with you. I agree with some from those 2 sides.

Here is an interesting artical on restored creeks.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/107460_coho06.shtml

Duroboat,

Indeed water quality and quantity are very important and underappreciated aspects of fish habitat. Contrary to popular belief, it takes more than good gravel to have habitat for salmon.

I think if these low water levels continue for many more years it will be water quantity that is limiting for salmon everywhere in washington. Increasing demands for water by our growing human poplulation are going to be a serious impediment to wild salmon in future years.

Just my doom and gloom $.02

OK Jerry point well taken.....good dialogue so far.

Washington Trout's statement that the HGMP's don't make a good enough case for a good reason to provide fish for harvest is not ambiguous to me. They are trying to show that hatcheries are not needed and should be closed. That is what they have been pushing and will continue to push until they either succeed and fishing falls apart or they are stopped. I , for one, will work hard to try to stop themevery chance I get. Make no mistake, I am all for the habitat restoration ideal but I also know that rivers with pristine habitat have no fish and poor habitats have fish so it isn't cut and dried. So many things are under way right now to help the cause of restoring salmon runs that WT's methods are still radical and extreme in my mind.

If I'm not mistaken, your earlier argument was that the wild fish populations are doing very well. If that is indeed the case, then why do we need hatcheries?

In contrast, if the wild populations are not doing well, then one has to ask the questions as to why that might be the case. Sure we're seeing an up turn the past couple of seasons, but it is doubtful that this will be a continuing trend.

Are Hatcheries good or are they bad? Well I'm not sure. It's a very complex issue. That's why various organizations are studying the effects of what we do. Do I like WT? I'm not sure of that either, but it will be interesting to see what data they gather and what their suggestions are.

Are WT's methods extreme/radical? Possibly. Maybe that is what is needed to restore the native runs. Sometimes it takes radical movement in one direction to get the parties opposed to move at all in the other direction. Certainly WT's methods/motives are not meant to bring an end to fishing. It would be like insinuating that the NRA is trying to ban the use of guns...

For me, the jury is still out because like most people on this board, more information needs to be collected and analyzed, by both the conservation groups and us as sport fisherman.

It seems like the purpose of these discussions should be for people to lay out the facts instead of just forming an oppinion based upon heresay.

Twig,
I dont know if you have done this or not. But if you want to do some reading on the issue go to your favorite search engine (I like google) and type in what you want info on i.e "salmon hatchery vs wild" or maybe try "salmon recovery".
There is a ton of info out there suporting both sides of the issue.Thats how I found the artical I posted above.
Also there is a book called "The great salmon hoax" there is some good info in there also.
You can find the book online at
http://www.buchal.com/tgsh/chap7/Table%20of%20Contents.htm

Twig, I don't think there is much to debate here. Habitat issues are the root of the problem.


Hatcheries clearly are not the ideal, but in the face of poor habitat what can you do? You can fix it but mainly that takes lots of time, $s, and the discpline not to mess things up again once they're fixed.

I don't think this is practical for the near future. Do you think anyone is seriously considering removing grand coulee for the sake of salmon passage?

The question is what can be done to improve the lot of wild salmon. I certainly think that banning all hatcheries would help a little. But that would put all fishing pressure on wild fish and some runs clearly cannot withstand that.

I think the better alternative is do what we can to fix the root of the problem (ie first stop all futher habitat degradation and then improve habitat that has been degraded).

I think WTs arguement about hatcheries is BS. There positionas I understand it is that stopping hatcheries is a good idea beacuse its easier to do than fixing the habitat. I don't dispute that changing or stopping current hatchery practices might help a little but thats not at the heart of the problem. Habitat is the biggest problem by far.

Using the logic of treating minor problems first, an ER doctor when faced with a patient with a beesting and gunshot wound to the chest would treat the beesting because it is easier.

Not hard to figure out what would happen to such a patient. Likewise given WTs strategy, I think you can guess what the future might hold for salmon if we continue on this path.

This just doesn't seem like a reasonable solution.

Its about the habitat

I agree that it is about the habitat! Unfortunately, historically, most of it resides above the dams.

As for Hatcheries, historically there were runs that were specific to each and every river system. What has happened now is that we've taken a relatively small genetic pool and dispersed it into waters where they are not native, thus, we're polluting the native genes. We've managed to wipe out in only a century what has taken millions of years to refine.

So while I understand that hatcheries allow us to fish, I also understand that we've become potentially short sighted in that we are unwilling to give up our fishing in the face of allowing the native species to become extinct.

So where do I stand? I still don't know, but I do know that we as a species have historically made poor choices due to our arrogance when it comes to mother nature, ie, putting in dams in the first place!

You're right on Geoduck!!! Hatcheries are a much easier target than undoing the Bolt decision, taking away Commercial Fishing rights, removing dams or even making marginal changes to streams.

grandpa/ Aunty M you are wrong... You also are NOT spokesmen for Washington Trout yet you spend all this time and effort telling us what they want then complain to me when i do the same..

Grandpa you still have failed to answer the two questions i asked at the very beginning..

1. Have you read the HGMP's
2. What specific actions do thoes plans suggest to addredd the KNOWN problems at their WDFW hatcheries.


Habitat.... habitat restoration works for some species in some situations where it can be effective it should be used..

I have relayed this story many times in this forum and others.

The Washougal early in the 1900 and latw 1800's and up until 1950's had a known population of 1500+ wild summer steelhead. This number was taked by the deprtment in index pool counts. the actual population could have been twice that number because of other pool and run timing compared to surveys conducted.. At the time these runs were going on the Washougal had it's headwaters ravaged by forest fire twice tas the subject of intense logging and mining . The river had 3 dams and a grist mill all of which impeaded fish passage. On top of that the canyon was continually filled with loggs creating splash dams which were dynamites to send the logs down river. Also the Camas papermill poured all kinds on untreeted waste directly into the river mouth... All that and every year it had 1500+ wild summer steelhead

1960's as a result of the mitchell act the Washougal hatchery is built instantly the Washougal becomes a popular fishing destination because of all the fish.. Soon it is in the top 5 steelhead rivers in the state.. Putting out fish on par with the rivers like the any river but the Cowlitz do now people caught and killed everything they kept including wild steelhead!! soon the numbers began to dwindle and the sizes of fish began to be all about the same. The fish moved from the runs and pockets into the deeper pools.. A very small group of anglers ( many of whom are now or who have been leaders in WT) banded together and after years of fighting against the department and groups like the Northwest stelheaders finially got wild steelhead release on the Washougal.. but not until wild steelhead runs were in the low hundreds and commonly under 100 fish..

Since that day the habitat in the upper watershed is no longer logged or mined all the dams are gone some of the habitat has restored itself some habitat has been restored by man. All wild steelhead must be released and still the fish are nor recovering!! Good ocean conditions and yet the fish are not recovering.. Why is it that with improved habitat and harvest conditions are these fish not recovering??????? I'll give you a hint.. It opened in the 1960's when the decline started..

On the other hand Chum salmon are very easy to restore if you don't harvest them.. all they need is clean offchannel gravel and a decent estuary enviroment. Thats why the Columbia is seeing a huge comeback on it's wild Chums

Every species has it's own needs Just cause the fishing is good for once species doesn'r mean all is well it just means a lot of hatchery fish are surviving and thats all it means..

If all a person wants id fish to bonk on the head then thats what they should say. They shouldn't make up exuses why they disagree with someone else.

I personally think that the survival of the species is more important than my desire to go fishing..

Robert,
Maybe you should post those studies on the effects of hatchery salmon on wild salmon again. That shut up the anti WT people the last time. I noticed none of them even bothered to comment on the science.

Twig ... I don't believe I ever said wild fish populations are healthy and that we are not in need of reforms in all areas of concern including hatcheries. I said this year is one of the best I can remember in terms of FISHING.
Washington Trout does not discuss FISHING...Save the wild salmon for the sake of saving them which is ok but don't try to sell me on the idea that WT is concerned about fishing. They are not and I am. I am a sportsfishing advocate all day long. It has nothing simplistic, as Rob says, to do with "bonking".

Geoduck you are pretty set that habitat is the only problem...fix that and there you go! All fixed. Not so. The problem is not simplistic and the solution isn't either.

Rob: As far as answering your questions goes, what good would any answer do? You are a blind supporter of WT and all the hogwash they send out. Just because you try to put a different saddle on the old nag doesn't mean you've got a better horse. I don't agree with anything you say so get over it and move on.

*LOL* Grandpa thank you very much dor discrediting yourself. you have not read the HGMP's and therefore do not know what you are talking about.. prove me wrong.. Go read them then tell me what specific actions WDFW is planning to take to solve the known problems at their hatcheries..

On the other hand maybe you can't find the various leadeing members of WT out fishing because you do not know them or anything about them.
But i do. they tell me about winter steelheading on the Skagit they fish in the sound for salmon and then writting magazine atricles about it. They plunk sandshrimp and a spinglo on Drano lake trying to harvest a hatchry spring chinook. Maybe you should take some time to get to know some of these members they are as much about saving sportfishing as you.. However they understand that to save the fishing you must first save the fish..

Aunty M.. your hardly worth responding to in my opinion.. I have in the past as noted by other members here posted literally dozens of documents by hundreds of UNBIASED scientists.

Aunty M how many punches on your card this year?? mine?? 0 last year?? 4 the year before? 1.

You are largely incorrect about why hatcheries exsist.. Most hatcheries exsist because of loss of habitat due to hydro powered dams!!! NOT overharvest. especially here in the Columbia drainage.

As i already statd chum salmon are very easy to restore all they need is clean gravel and access to good estuary habitat.

hatcheries have never to my knowledge been successful in restoring any salmon runs anywhere. understand "restoring" to mean the long term self sustaining runs at high population levels. In fact the oppisite is true every time you put hatchery fish on top of wild fish the population of wild fish goes down..

hatcheries have their place and certainly WT knows and accepts that fact I have never heard anyone from WT say or imply anything different.. However they do not belong in nearly every single river in the state , which is currently the case. You don't see anything wrong because you already have what you want( Lots of hatchery fish everywhere) No hatchery to my knowledge has ever been closed as a result of any action by WT. No hatchery production level or any procedure has ever been changed as a result of any action by Washington Trout. All they are doing it seems to me is to try to get WDFW to live up to their legal obligations. This is a totally run away agency that thinks it is not accountable to us. Wt is trying to change that..


I also suggest you take a long hard look at WT's work in the past regarding harvest issues. They have done a ton of work to reduce harvest levels of salmon. They have been greatly involved in every aspect of salmon restoration which benefits YOU as a sportfisher.. it is my opinion you owe them an apology and a thankyou for all the work they have done on your behalf.

But i make you the same offer if you care about wild salmon if you really do then come out to the East Lewis next saturday with a shovel and a wheelbarrow the gravel you'll move will have chums spawning in it in November.

PS done with this thread

While it's not my job to arbitrate, conversations where one side blatently accuses the other of being ignorant ultimately continue to make the divide even greater. Both sides of the WT issue have their arguments, and there is truth in them both. When personal attacks begin to be the means of communication, both sides walk away and this is not what is needed to solve the problem.

At some point one has to rely on the fact the ultimately people have to make up their minds by themselves. With a thorough and thoughtful means of relaying the facts, and I do mean the facts versus opinions, hopefully we as a society of sport fisherman can make the right decisions concerning the ultimate outcome of the very fish that we love so dearly.

Spoken like a true moderate Twig. I wish I could help with the problem but we solved them all over a couple of beers down at the pub earlier and we will solve them again over a couple of beers at the pub again tomorrow and the next day just as we have every evening in the past. You can rest assured that every night our collective wisdom openly shared in good humor with no problem ignored. Everyone with an open mouth is welcome.

Rob A... OK Ill say it, "All I want is to bonk a few fish for the table."

And by the way... In answer to your question:
The runs of wild Puget Saound Chinook are not endangered nor are they listed as endangered under the ESA . They are in fact doing quite well lately, even showing an increasing trend in their numbers.

Plunker,

You said, "The runs of wild Puget Saound Chinook are not endangered nor are they listed as endangered under the ESA . They are in fact doing quite well lately, even showing an increasing trend in their numbers."

Isn't that a bit misleading? True, they are not endangered nor listed as such. However, wild Puget Sound chinook salmon are listed as threatened under the ESA. A couple of years of improved returns (due almost entirely to higher marine survival) does not a trend make. The long term trend (measured over 5, 10, or 20 year increments) is clearly declining. When PS chinook are consistently abundant in years of low marine survival, then I'll agree that their continued existence is not imperiled.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo - You are absolutely right as usual and right again in pointing that out.

Sometimes I tire of those same misleading implications when posted as truisms. I simply wanted Rob to stop and check his facts and (shuffling my foot here) discredit him a bit.

Rob allen
Do not feel like you are alone out there.The wdfw is uncontrolled and needs to be put back into its place.Hatcheries can be used to subsidise our ever growing population but it needs to be done responsibly.Our current hatchery policies are not responsible and need to be addressed.In the past our gov.both state and fed have allowed the over harvest of our fish and the destruction of our wetland ecosystem causing a serios decline in our native fish.The quick answer was to build hatcheries.There was no thought to the of the implications.Now many years down the road the implications are becoming quite obvios but here once again politics means more than the facts.wt you keep doing what you are doing.If it means a few less fish for the table then so be it.

Comparing punch cards again eh Rob? What does that prove? Mine is bigger than yours! Hey come on over and bring your tape measure.

Washington Trout (accdording to Rob) says that hatcheries have their place. Now I haven't read that anywhere from Ramon or his cronies. Can you show me a documented quote where WT admits that hatcheries are a good thing and have their place in fisheries management.

AuntyM owes WT an apoolgy according to Rob...Well Rob you're going to have to change your name to Mr. Blue because that is the color you are going to be ,holding your breath for that to happen. I think Ramon, you and all the rest of the people who speak out for Washington Trout need to apologize to the all of us for being less than honest and very disingenuous. If you put a string of pearls on a pig you still have a pig. Your self serving narrow agenda doesn't sell to the majority of fishermen. Atleast you could tell the whole truth. Stop trying to be self-righteous as if your "cause" to eliminate hatcheries is somehow nobler than anything any of the rest of us are doing for our fisheries. It isn't. Pinch yourself.

Salmo...You bring up the benefits of marine survival and I assume you mean the favorable ocean conditions and abundance of feed? That is correct. What you failed to mention is that this same argument has been used in reverse when runs are poor. Poor ocean survival is blamed. Ocean conditions improving and resulting in huge runs shoots the heck out of the habitat onshore argument in the context of finding a single most-important cause of decline. So to simplify this and say oh well the big returns are only because of the favorable ocean conditions would be disingenuous and an incomplete assessment of the situation. Blaming the decline of fisheries on hatcheries is a similar oversimplification. So we should all be able to see and agree that a complex series of factors contribute to both declines and improvements in fish runs. We need to work on them all....except the ocean condtions which we haven't figured out how to control yet. If ocean conditions seem to be the biggest contributor to successfull runs then perhaps Rob and Ramon can file suit in Federal court against nature?

I don't think those of us who vehemently object to WT's methods are saying that hatchery practices do not need reform. The WDFW needs to reform alot of policies and practices in my opinion. The HGMP's are not the end all of salmon hatchery reform...they are incomplete and in need of improvement. The wheels of progress with any government agency are squeaky and agonizingly slow. If we could privatize the management of our fisheries we could speed things up but that isn't going to happen.

I am convinced that WT is not interested in positive reform of hatchery practices but only in the elimination of hatcheries. Some of you give them atta boys and wish them well to keep doing what they are doing and that is fine. Those who disagree with you will keep doing what we do as well in hopes of improving sports fishing opportunities. I suppose between all of this diverse and opinionated effort we will collectively succeed some day.

And finally: I applaud you Rob for getting your hands dirty helping to restore some habitat. If I don't join you with my shovel that won't prove that you care more than I do only that you are doing something positive for fish. Thanks for that.

Now I am going fishing.........................

If my memory is correct here, Washington Trout stated that the WDFW's failure to secure approval for the HGMP's in a timely manner was a major reason for there lawsuit asking for the closure of salmon producing hatcheries.

I just don't see how the settlement giving them time to examine and testify against those same HGMP's might speed their approval?

I apologise old man I should be more selfish like you.But then again I could be lying acording to you I am now a dishonest liar.Go snag yourself some more of your pet hatchery fish before the evil wt closes down the farm.

Cleo

I think you might want to consider joining Rob in anger management class... It could help you when confronting things you disagree with.

and by the way I'm not an old man....

Grandpa, Looking at Cleo's avatar, you and me both are old men

Aunty M now thats just a stinking lie. I never ever , ever said any of thoes things nor implied them... If you cannot be honest please don't talk about me! That is just a flat out lie and you know it..
But why the hell am i explaining myself to the likes of you

The hatcheries in puget sound are the furthest thing from being responsible. READ THE THGMP"S!!!!!

Cleo I'm headen for the Quil right now....are you really sure you want to label me as a dirty no good snagger?

auntym, heres a question for you, if you wanted to join a group that hated and wanted gillnets out of the water, what group would you join ?

Wow I go out fishing for a few hours and release several WILD Coho and look what happens! Another angry personal attack from Rob....go figure....AuntyM I feel sorry for Rob. He is obviously in need of the previously recommended anger management.

Aunty M that wasn't a personal attack! That was me just pointing out what YOU did!

You lied about what i said! pointing out that i don't have to explain myself to a liar is not an attack of any kind just a statement of fact.

If you willing to quit telling untruths then maybe we can have a discussion.

I am going to the Deschutes for 3 days goodbye Please never ever respond to anything i say ever again. I don't like you and you don't like me lets just leave it at that!

Aunt's been a very bad girl

No one wants to play with you anymore….and I'm going to tell mom!

Well Aunty, how's it feel be a "board mother?"

The kids are going to leave home, if you don't give them what they want! And they are going to find someone else to play with!!


Cowlitzfisherman

auntym, other than washington trout not liking them, i`m sure there are a few other groups.

Aunty

Please do not tell anyone else on this board what I am about to say to you because it is 100% confidential, secret, and private! But my group (CPR-Fish) truly believes that all gillnets really, really suck! Yes, did I say suck? Maybe I may have misspelled that word again!

Cowlitzfisherman

they were heavy into the I-696 net ban

AuntyM....Sorry Rob's wrath has jumped from me to you but he appears to need help. Seems like some viewpoints held by Rob and Ramon and many others on this board are so absolute in their minds that anyone opposing them must be an idiot, a liar, a snagger, a bonker, or whatever ...I am trying to understand this thinking: " I think you are a big fat liar and an idiot so don't ever say anything about what I say ever again!!!" What? HUH?

The thing is that when people attack and attack and attack and spew out their "facts" trying to refute your position and you stick to your opnions and restate them over and over again they give up and call you names and then take their ball and walk out of the game.

By the way I don't remember Washington Trout working on the net ban...I did but then WT was not on my radar screen. WT worked with Puget Sound Anglers in the past but once they started down their radical and extreme road I think PSA parted company or visa versa. I am pretty sure WT would be against any type of net as it is a tool for harvest. They may have gotten sucked into the tangle net idea at first and then threatened to sue...but they probably found out that the tribes would be too formidable a foe so they went after WDFW instead and ultimately struck pay dirt with a big fat cash reward .

I suspect that most fishing organizations are against gill nets. I know PSA is, and is also against commercial harvest of steelhead. Personally I am not against commercial fishing but I am against gill nets. I'd like to see trollers off the coast only with no commercial netting inside anywhere...especially on the rivers. I'd like to see the tribes fish "in kind" with everyone else as I think the treaty writers intended instead of being in charge of the fisheries as they are now.

I don't typically like to get involved in bashing threads because they usually aren't productive, but this one was one I couldn't stay away from. So prior to posting, I read through a couple of the HGMP documents and WT's comment letter yesterday and today.

Now that I've read some of the information, I don't understand why folks are so focused on "WT wants all hatcheries closed" when more important issues are at hand. It seems that most folks are pro wild fish yet WT asks some very good questions that need answers and folks completely ignore them. These are the same types of questions a timber company would have to answer to get an "incidental take permit". The whole idea is to show a particular business is taking measures to protect listed critters so that "incidental take" is relatively minor. Isn't it just as important for WDFW to answer the questions and show that they are protecting wild fish? The last thing I'd like to bring up is the "endangered species act".

ESA is a warning bell that current practices are placing a particular species at risk for extinction. While a critter may not be listed as "threatened" or "endangered" doesn't mean that everything is going along all fine and dandy. In some instances, the lack of being listed may be due in part to political science rather than biological science. The fact that a particular species and ESA are mentioned in the same sentence indicates we've already made some very bad decisions.

Focusing on Washington Trout's zeal to close hatcheries speaks for itself. I have said over and over again that reforms are needed but I have also said that I do not believe that WT wants reforms but all out closures which would be a victory for them but a loss for sports fishing in general. I think that groups like Long Live The Kings have a much more proactive plan for hatchery reform than WT. What I don't care for is WT's tendancy to conceal things and say what their audience wants to hear instead of straight shooting. This is what politicians do and it is effective in sucking in people to the cause who would otherwise not support it. There are lots of EX WT supporters who finally realized that WT is more of an animal rights extreme organization with a super narrow agenda than an organization working for any kind of sports fishing cause. So sports fishing people working on hatchery reform and habitat restoration and harvest and hydro issues don't see WT as being on the same team.

That is not to say that WDFW doesn't have some explaining to do and alot of ground to cover.

You would think that I would of learned to stay out of these conspiracy therory threads but alas...

Gooose...Maybe you need to take me to the quill fishery.I will decide afterwards whether you are a dirty snagger or not Seriosly though lets do it.I have some pics I would like to show ya.{Goose is not a dirty snagger but is a very ethical fisherman.I am just funnin him}

grandpa..gee I wonder where the old man remark came from....Talk about being a onesided ,name calling in need of keeping the emotion in check.You must be short on mirrors,probably has something to do with all the rocks you through in that glass house of yours.Getting that of my chest i think I will skip anger mangement class now go to work.On a positive note I do root for you on the errant political posts.

Aunty...You are the only person I have ever seen on these boards that will actually change an opinion as new information comes our way.Our fisheries would be alot better of if more of us could think and evolve as you do.I have though agreed with rob Allen for quite awile now when it comes to his passion against the hatcheries.I guess I have not been as willing to put my head out on the chopping block as he has done.Can you change my mind?

I do have major issues with our hatchery programs.The use of the hatcheries out here on the canal is going to finish off what the nets didn't or have not.They are dumping fish in the rivers where ever whenever they wish and it is one f the biggest reasons the wild fish are not coming back around.On top of that I can use a treble hook with a worm on waters that are c/r but two hatchery steelhead.In the meen time I get too watch two of the most unethical fisheries in the state of washiongton every fall,based on the HATCHERIES.I am one of those people that believe that our hatcheries are doing alot more harm then good.I am getting to the point that I am with anybody that challenges the state on these issues.My privelage to go fishing does not meen as much as the survival of the native fish stocks.I have spent way to much time way off the beaten path in search of these absolutly magnifecent specimins to see them replaced by a HATCHERY fish that does not really even know what it is anymore.

Example...Every year I hike into the canyon under the steel bridge on the Skoke.There used to be a healthy robust stock of resident steelhead or trout or whatever you want to call them.This year I get nothing but a bunch fin cliped hatchery smolt, none of the beautiful bright red fish that I have grown to love.

Example...In another canyon my first summer fish was a spawned out hatchery fish with its belly full of smolts...I had heard of this before but never put any weight on the idea..untill now.Do not care if the states science concerning the survival of hatchery spawn is correct or not,at this point.I am just wondering how many wild smolt these down river brights are killing.

example...want to see proof that hatchery fish reproduce in the wild.Fish the old hatchery on the duckabush end of nov. begining of dec.Basicly as the silvers and the chum die out.There still there.

Yeah, well, you're still OK by me, Plunk.

The shuffling the foot comment illustrated everything perfectly.

Aside from the near derailments, this has been an interesting thread. I'm still riding the fence, though. I can see good stuff from both sides.

How old are you Cleo????????

I was getting tired when I posted last night and I clearly missed a couple of points I wanted to make. I understand the concerns about closing all hatcheries, but I think we need to put things into perspective. If WT truly wants to close all hatcheries, I sincerely doubt they will ever have the political clout to make it happen (yes I know the initiative process is a wild card). Hatcheries and their associated fisheries bring in hundreds of thousands of dollars to our economy and many small communities rely on this influx of monies. Closing all hatcheries would have a dramatic impact on our economy and I seriously doubt any elected individual would want to be noted for making it happen. Personally, I think the issue detracts from the real important issue of, "how does the hatchery system really impact wild fish and does the hatchery system need to change?".

While I only reviewed a couple of the HGMP's, WT is right when they say that many of the answers are vague or incomplete. WT is also right when they say that impacts to wild fish aren't really quantified. The HGMP's state in many answers that hatcheries will be operated to minimize impacts to wild fish. Just what does that mean? Does it mean, instead of ultimately "taking" 10,000 wild fish they'll "take" 9,999? To me, these are the important issues that warrant much discussion and answers.

Ultimately the point I'd like to make is that we need to concentrate on what the real impacts to wild fish are. When we determine what the impacts are, then we can start the discussion about hatcheries changing or closing. Until then, I think we're putting the cart before the horse.

I've been involved in fish mangement in some way, shape, or form since the early 80's and I've seen a lot of issues come and go since then. It's always bothered me that when trying to solve problems, we get caught up in the emotional or sexy points and miss a lot of the details that we should be focusing on.

I know this looks like I'm picking on particular board members, but that isn't my intention. This just seemed like a good thread to interject some perspective that many folks don't have. Personally, I don't care if WT or Joe Blow down the street brings up good questions as long as we acknowledge the question and seek an answer.

For once and for all I will reiterate that hatcheries are in need of reform. The studies have been done and now we are into the "what do we do now" phase. There are so many factors at work it is not so simple as some paint it. "Attacking" WT is really trying to expose their real goals. I simply do not buy the saving wild fish mantra. We all want that. The "what for?" part is the real deal. Also how do we measure success?

I just read today that WDFW is allocating 5,000 more chinook (many of them wild) to the commercial trollers because despite the extended 7 days a week season for sports fishermen we could not reach our quota. I doubt that WT and their sponsors give a rip about this issue. No float tubes with fly fishermen out in the ocean. More Chinook returning than we can harvest. So are we making progress or what alibi will the WT use for so many returning wild fish? (5 to 1 over hatchery)............

AuntyM -

I noticed your last post and started looking through the thread to figure out who BTF is then I realized it's me Please don't interpret my comments as being directed toward you personally since I was really directing them to the board as a whole. This thread just seemed like a good place to point out some things that tend to get forgotten in the heat of the discussion.

36

Grandpa,

You continue to go on about how "misleading" I am, but you never offer specifics, so I still don't know what you're talking about. Once again, here is WT's hatchery position: hatcheries do more harm than good; they are jeopardizing chinook recovery in Puget Sound and violating the ESA; they MUST be significantly reformed, and if they can't or won't, they should be closed; serious reform will have to include signifcant reductions in production, and likely the termination of some programs. Our position is based on our review and understanding of the current evidence.

I have come to accept that this position is apparently beyond your ability to comprehend, but I believe that for most people, it is fairly clear. You clearly don't like what WT has to say, but that doesn't make it misleading.

Let's talk about something that is misleading.

You present a quote from my "term paper" (typical of you to slip in childish little insults, trying to bait people into responding so you can accuse them of getting personal):

"The HGMPs consistently fail to discuss why it is socially, economically, or biologically necessary, advisable, or even beneficial to provide fish for harvest using the described program."

Actually, I think you leave out the last few words. At any rate, by presenting the quote out of context, you're trying to imply that this is proof that WT is "anti-fishing." If you had quoted the whole paragragh, the message changes:

"Many (HGMPs) fail to even describe in sufficient detail what contribution the program is providing to any harvest benefit. Measures to assure that “adverse genetic, demographic or ecological effects on listed fish” are being minimized are never adequately described. Indeed, the level of these effects that WDFW would consider adequately “minimized” is never identified, nor is any effort to monitor how and when these effects will indeed be minimized described in any detail."

Our comments go on to add:

"THERE LIKELY ARE SEVERAL AND VARIED JUSTIFICATIONS FOR PROVIDING FISH FOR HARVEST (empahsis added here). They should be listed and described in sufficient detail to be evaluated and weighed objectively against all direct and indirect take of listed species likely to occur as a result of the program. "

I believe that makes it clear that we're asking for more detail, not trying to claim that there is no such thing as benefit from fishing. You said that you read all 100 pages of our comments so I'm not sure how you missed this stuff, but hopefully this will make our case more clear:

"The intent of the HGMP Template and process would appear to be to evaluate several broad factors -- the justification for or benefits derived from a particular hatchery program, the current state of the affected listed population, the potential for the program to take listed species, and the specific measures proposed by the program proponents to minimize that take (including the ongoing monitoring and evaluation of those measures) -- and to weigh these factors against each other in order to determine if take authorization is warranted. In general, the responses provided to individual queries in the HGMP Template that would address these factors are cursory, lacking in sufficient detail, and often inappropriate."

The HGMPs are like little cost-benefit analyses. You can't make the analysis without detailed info about the "costs" and the "benefits." We're not saying that fishing isn't a benefit; we're saying WDFW has a responsibility to quantify it, so it can be weighed against the harm that WDFW and NMFS both acknowledge that hatcheries do. But of course the HGMPs don't quantify the harm either (even though they're required to), so there's not even anyplace to start.

Would you think that a logging application was worth approving if it said only: We think there's a river in there somewhwere, and there's likely fish in it; We are convinced, based on nothing we want to share, that the way we have always logged does a good enough job of protecting salmon, so that's pretty much how we plan to do this; however, we don't want to say how, but we promise (because youre' forcing us) to do whatever we think is best to protect the fish, even though we don't think that logging can really hurt them (by the way, we have no plan to determine whether we're hurting the fish or not; no news is good news!). That's about the level of the HGMPs. Of course denying a logging permit wouldn't gore your own ox, would it grandpa?

It's not that WDFW doesn't have the answers; it's that the answers make them nervous. by leaving the details out, WDFW may be hoping we'll all assume that the "costs" to listed fish are lower than they actually are, and the benefits higher. WDFW may be worried that an accurate analysis, based on all the available information, might force them to make reductions to the Puget Sound hathcery program that they would rather not make. Of course that may not be true, but there's no way to know without the facts that WDFW has so far not provided. If WDFW truly cannot answer these questions, then they should scale the program down to experimetal size and use it to come up with the answers. As it stands, the overall program is too big to accomodate the level of uncertainty presented in the HGMPs.

I know that it's easier for you to attack and discredit WT's motives and "agenda" than it is to actually try to address the issues we raise in our comments, but it's dishonest, misleading, and childish. Read the HGMPs, read our comments (all the way through), and then tell me, point by point, where WT is wrong.

As a couple of side notes, trying to make "points" by attacking and making fun of how you think other people like to fish, even in "boutique" fly-fisheries, is just childish, not to mention ugly. You're going to do whatever you feel like, but I would appreciate it if you didn't refer to me as "ramon." We are not friends. Again, I have no power to make you do anything, but I just want to make sure you know that it's "ramon vb," "WT Communications Director Ramon Vanden Brulle," or "Mr Vanden Brulle" to you.

Auntie M:

WDFW is under no obligation whatsoever to answer to the HSRG, or to follow any of their recommendations. Which is good for WDFW, because according to the HGMPs, WDFW will apparently not be implementing any of the HSRG recommendations. The HGMP template specifically asks how the particular hatchery program "alligns with" any other "ESU-wide" hatchery-management plans or processes. Applicants are not required to follow any other "ESU-wide" plan, but they are required to explain why they're not. None of the HGMPs even mention the HSRG! None of the proposed practices in any of the individual HGMPs appear to allign with any HGMP recommendations.

I'd be interested too to find out what Long Live the Kings and the HSRG think of that. The HSRG process could be perfect but still meaningless if it is never implemented.

Ramon Vanden Brulle, Communications Director
Washington Trout

Auntie,

No government official, local, state, or federal, is particularly committed to salmon preservation or recovery. Salmon are their biggest headache! They would all be happy to see the wild fish extinct, replaced entirely by enough hatchery fish to keep tribal, commercial, and sport harvest interests happy. That would not only get you off their backs, but then they wouldn't have to do any of the hard work that will be necessary to reform the agricultural, forestry, development, hydroelectric, and industrial practices that destroy salmon habitat. You don't need healthy rivers, forests, and other ecosystems to run a hatchery. Everybody wins! (Except the fish and the environment of course, but they're used to losing.)

The question I have is this. Does that future sound good enough for you? (I mean the "you" rhetorically; you don't have to answer.)

Ramon Vanden Brulle
Washington Trout

Dear Mr. Ramon Vanden Brulle, Communications Director Washington Trout:

You can continue to address me however you wish. Grandpa isn't my real name as AuntyM is not her real name. Whatever floats your boat. I do not feel that you somehow need to be addressed with some reverence like a man of great stature. To me you are a man with a mission that I vehemently disagree with, an enemy combatant if you will. You are not someone I hold in great stature. I will try harder to be polite however.

I need to spend a little more time than I have this afternoon looking at your two page rebuttal to me and when I have I will respond more completely so you can more completely trash everything I say in greater detail.

I will only say at this time that what I find misleading over a period of time and not with this specific snippet of your opinions is that you and WT try to put a different face on your objective sometimes to appeal to a specific audience. The environmental side of your argument says that restoring the environment and "wild fish" is a noble goal that should be achieved at almost any cost and that goal is an end to itself. Fish are incidental to that game. Maybe they are simply like the canary in the coal mine as an indicator species. Maybe like the spotted owl or the snail darter.No mention of what the end game is or more specifically how you know you have achieved that environmental goal. You are currently wrapping yourself in the ESA and using it as the justification for extreme measures. Mitigation is not in that vocabulary. It is either your way or off to court you go. And you usually will say that it is not WT's idea it is the LAW, the ESA.

I am gratified that WT has not to this point seen fit as many other extreme environmental and animal rights groups have to resort to more extreme and sometimes illegal and violent means to force views on those who do not agree. Thank you for that. You only resort to words and law suits to try to force others to follow your philosophies.

I think that the ESA is used in many cases too narrowly without regard to the damage it can cause. Kind of like spending a dollar to save a nickle. Some common sense is in order.

In conclusion I will state my firm opinion about you and WT. You want hatcheries closed and you don't give a rip about the consequences to fishermen as long as your agenda is met. Are serious reforms only the ones WT approves of? I think more people need to know that your way would result in immediate disaster for fisheries in this state for the long term goal of saving wild fish. How many wild fish? When that number is "saved" by WT then what? Only fly fishing on private ranches run by sponsors of WT? If hatcheries are so bad then fishing has got to be worse doesn't it? What comes after that? No dams, no irrigation? No timber cutting?

I just don't feel comfortable with your nose being anywhere inside the tent because I am quite sure once it is in you will try to bowl over everyone until they all "see the light" as laid out by WT.

Sincerely

Mister Grandpa, director emeritus of Citizens Against Washington Trout

Here's a question... If the hatcheries do close, how long will it be before we have "fishable" numbers again? 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 years?

Will reform of the hatcheries hurt the numbers of returning fish? Contingency plan if reform doesn't work?

What about the returning fish being intercepted Canadian waters? What about the commercial (to include charter) guys off the coast? Gunna buy them out? What about the impact to the economy? Etc..

Way too many factors to consider. Has any of this be considered? What's the contingency plan?

Why not take on the indians their netting practices? That effects wild steelhead too!
How about spending [more] money on stream restoration? Dam removal.. Why attack a program that already in enough trouble financially?

Just think, we if didn't have over-fishing years ago, we wouldn't have hatcheries now!

I sound a bit extreme... but if you want to save wild salmon in the next two life times, we better all quit fishing and let nature take it course.

My .02...

Looking forward to your .02 in person when you return to Puget Sound soon.

Ramon

After carefully reading your latest post I have concluded that you and your group, WT, are doing some good things for habitat but you tend to be extreme and wish to impose your extreme environmental views on those of us who disagree with your methods. Your environmental cause has some good points but tends to err on the side of the animals and not the humans. You are using the courts and the laws to leverage your position at the expense of many good people with good intentions.

Therefore I conclude that I do not accept your criticisms as valid and will ignore them.

Which criticisms are you ignoring, that you quoted WT's comments out of context in an effort to mislead, that you care more about your own short-term interests than you do about whether WDFW adequately meets its responsibilities, or that you consistently employ dishonest, unfair, and juvenile debating techniques? You can ignore them all you like; I believe most objective observers would consider them valid, no matter where they came from.


The title of this thread is "Washington Trout Is At It Again!" The "It" that were are apparently "At" is that we drafted and submitted comments to WDFW critical of their HGMPs, which amount to WDFW's proposal to run their Puget Sound hatchery programs in a way that won't illegally impair chinook recovery, a rather important matter. In another apparently extreme move, we excercised our right to take part in a public review of WDFW's proposal to manage a public resource, and found it inadequate.

So again I ask you (or anyone) to read any portion of WT's comments, examine it relative to the relevant passage of the relevant HGMP, and tell us all where and how it is inaccurate, unfair, or extreme. I am enthusiastic about discussing the actual "It," rather than just whether WT is anti fishing or not. You say you don't support WT's "agenda" on hatcheries. How about WDFW's? They've put it down in black and white. Defend it, and tell us all, if you can, specifically where WT is wrong.

All I'm asking for is an opportunity to let the issues and positions speak for themselves. In all this time, we have still never discussed the relative merits of WT's position in any detail. Some people seem to be satisfied with a "if WT says it, I'm agin' it" reaction, but others might want to know exaclty what it is we said. I know what you think about me now; let's move on. It's one thing to try and discredit the messenger, but at some point we should actually address the message.

Ramon Vanden Brulle
Washington Trout

Perhaps in that statement you very well express the symptomatic problem in the attitude that you and Washington Trout propose.

Every indication is that you depend upon "salmon in crisis" for your bread and butter and that your primary goal is not recovery but to promote the idea that recovery is needed and that you and your organization will work to accomplish that goal in the face of adversity from all others concerned... with the exception of other environmentally oriented extremist groups of course.

Wasn't WT instrumental in the listing of Puget Sound chinook and other species?

Are salmon not disposed to both long and short cycles in their numbers?

The listings seem to have come at the bottom of a long cycle of low numbers primarily due to ocean conditions which was compounded by excessive harvest.

We have been experiencing record returns of many stocks of salmon of late and every indication is that these record numbers are the harbinger of another long cycle of good returns.

Could it be that Washington Trout is the problem?

Ramon,
Its been said here afew times that alot of WT members are sport fisherman themselves as are you. So if that is the case even if 100% of your catch is released. How can your group say they will do anything to protect wild fish. With hook mortality and stress mortality your group will have some impact on wild fish.Would it not? Would this make the fisherman in your group hypocrites? I for one would sure think so.

Would it be hypocritical for a Ducks Unlimited supporter to shoot a duck during the season? No, not at all... You can protect a species so it can thrive in the wild and still value it as a gamebird or gamefish, whatever the case maybe.

Washington Trout is different in that they are not interested in protecting fishing opportunities, but rather to ensure future generations have the chance to have wild fish. They believe wild fish have intrinsic value beyond what they provide as a resource. However, its only natural that the people most interested in saving fish are fishermen because they have a hands-on appreciation for them. In the same respect, a kid who has never seen a forest is much less likely to see the value in preserving forests than someone who went camping, fishing, hunting, etc. You appreciate what you know, and fishermen know fish.

I don't believe WT members are hypocritical in the least in that many fish for what they are trying to protect. WT doesn't stand on either side of pro or anti-fishing, so how are they going against their beliefs?

Plunker,

WT's primary goal is wild fish recovery. If you sincerely believe that "the need for recovery" is some invention of WT's, and that salmon and steelhead stocks are in reality doing OK, then there is no reason for us to address each other at all. I don't mean to get personal, but I'm sorry; that is an assinine argument that NO credible observer would even begin to entertain. And for the record, while WT supports all current salmon and steelhead listings as biologically and legally credible, it has not been "instrumental" in the listing of any species.

Duroboat:

I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about. WT is not anti fishing; we're not even anti harvest. This is not about saving individual fish from any harm whatsoever, it's about managing the resource (yes we believe it is a resource to be used - sustainably) responsibly to minimize harm to the population as a whole. There is nothing even inconsistent, let alone hypocritical, between that position and the simple act of fishing responsibly.

If a memeber of WT fished in closed waters, or over a population of fish where current regulations were not responsible enough to ensure the overall poulation's health, that might be a different matter. There are some open waters that I wouldn't fish, and some species/populations I leave alone. I don't think people should fish over endangered chinook and steelhead on the Methow. But that doesn't make me a hypocrite if I fish for steelhead on the Sol Duc, where all indications are that the population is healthy. Merely going fishing, while advocating for better management, does not automatically create any conflict that I see.

But here we are again talking about WT. Is that really the issue? Is nobody interested in what hatchery-management plan WDFW is proposing, and what WT had to say about it?

Ramon Vanden Brulle
Washington Trout

Watch out Mr. Vanden Brulle!

I think CWUgirl might be after your job.



Edit: Thanks for your reply Mr. Vanden Brulle.

You must know that you are stretching the truth substantially in denying involvement in ESA listings.

I say you are guilty by association but that statement may have been expressed from either end of my system of external orifices.

No offense intended - Plunk

You know, the ironic thing is, I'll probably never give money to Washington Trout. I can't reason around the fact that they supported the anti-trapping initiative. WT coming out against the resource use of animals is fundamentally different than my own beliefs and as such I won't do anything to further their causes (other than voice my opinion), even if I feel they're right.

Plunker,

I want to make sure the record is straight on this. I didn't deny WT involvement in listing decisions (although our involvement has been pretty incidental at best); I said we have never been instrumental in any listings. I don't know what "instrumental" means to you in this context, but WT didn't petition for any of the current listings, and we provided no real input into any of NMFS's listing decisions, we merely supported the listings on scientific and legal grounds.

We did sign a letter, with many other conservation and fish-advocacy groups, threatening to sue the US Fish and Wildlife Service if they did not finalize a decision on listing bull trout. I don't believe we initiated that letter, but merely signed on when invited (this was just about the time I came to work here). And USFWS was just about to list bull trout anyway; the suit threat was designed to get them to stop stalling. They announced the listing decision within days of recieving the letter.


WT has submitted three listing petitions, one for Deer Creek summer steelhead, one for Lake Sammammish kokanee, and one for Puget Sound bottom fish. All three were denied (you can't win em all). Don't get me wrong; as I said, we support all current listings, and we believed the government erred in its decisions re our petitions as well as in its recent decision not to list westslope cutthroat trout. I'd be happy to take the credit, I suppose, but I have to say that it would be overselling WT's role (not to mention our relative clout ) to claim we have been "instrumental" in any listing decision.

I would still welcome the opportunity to respond to any question, comment, or challenge regarding any specific element of WT's review of the WDFW Puget Sound HGMPs.

Ramon Vanden Brulle,
Washington Trout

Mr. Vanden Brulle,

Thank you for the clarification. It is very much appreciated.

Although I disagree with the message WT is sending I have no doubt in your sincerity.

and now...
I'm headed to the Skagit to see if maybe I can rustle up a nice sea run cutt for dinner. They have been exceptional in their size and numbers here this year.

ramon vb

Is there a specific hatchery that you can applaud for its program? Anywhere? Can you envision a hatchery operating in Washington or Oregon that would meet your standards? If so which one is the best candidate so we can explore what the difference is between that program and all the others in the controversy. No trout hatcheries need be listed. Let's stick with salmon and steelhead.

Do you support what the tribes are doing in terms of hatchery reform? Do you agree with Billy Frank Jr's assessment of the hatchery programs?

Finally did your law firm kick back the legal fees from the latest law suit against WDFW in the form of a contribution to WT?

Well those are at least some fair questions (by and large). I am leaving for the day so I can;t give each of them the time they deserve here, but I will get back with more thorough replies.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of an existing hatchery program that WT would "applaud" (outside of a couple emergency rescue operations like Snake River sockeye, but I don't think that's what you're looking for). I will look and see if I can come up with anything though. We certainly could "envision" an acceptable hatchery program, and with a little more time, I'll be happy to describe what one could look like.

WT supports all efforts at hatchery reform. We may not think they go far enough, and if they don't we would continue to press for more, but we would never let perfect become the enemy of good. Having said that, I will have to admit that WT is skeptical of Mr Frank's assessment, both on the science and as a matter of credibility. I am by no means trying to imply that Mr Frank is at all dishonest, but I hope even you would agree with me that the NW Indian Fisheries Commission has a much more obvious "interest' and "agenda" on this issue than WT does; hatcheries are a pretty straightforwardly economic issue for them.

I guess I can't expect too much from you, so your last question, a fairly clumsy attempt to continue discrediting WT, does not surprize, or even disappoint me. Whatever. Our lawyers refunded to us the amount we had paid them for the work they did up to the point of the settlement. While we were happy to recoup that money, it still did not cover our internal staff costs from working on the two cases for over a year. I know what you like to think, but this is hardly like hitting a jackpot at the slots.

I'm still waiting for a substantive question directly related to what WT submitted regarding WDFW's Puget Sound hatchery programs, but this is definitely an improvement. I will be getting back to you.

Ramon Vanden Brulle
Washington Trout

My "clumsy" attempt to discredit WT concerning the legal fees was not really clumsy and was actually intended for others who keep bragging that your settlement ONLY covered you direct legal fees. I would expect that the legal fees in excess of $50,000 I think would have been given back which, in essence, is the same as if WT had won a monetary award from WDFW. The money went in WT's bank account....end of story. That is a back door way for the lawsuit to seem more "friendly" I guess.

I am trying to be civil but I have to work at lapsing into cynicism and sarcasm. I'm working on it.

I am busy with so many things that responding in a debate format is tough. I am not on College Bowl or in the debate club. I just want some nuggets of truth to come out of this from both sides...until we are on the same side if that day ever comes.

All I have to say on all this is if people succeed in closing the hatcheries you all can kiss Washingtons native fish bye bye!
And thats the bottom line. Mainly because the indians are still going to get there 50 percent wild or hatchery! Duh!

That is a fair question I suspect: What would happen if all the hatcheries were closed? After 5 years with no hatcheries would the wild returns be on a major upswing. As far as I can tell that is the idea of closing them. Do nothing else but close down the hatchery program statewide. What would really happen?

Grandpa 2,

I'm still working on describing a hatchery program that would be "acceptable" to WT, in answer to one of your earlier questions. Bear with me a littel longer.

But in the meantime, you go on doing other stuff that I can't leave unanswered.

First of all on the money thing. You keep trying to make it into something it isn't, but I'm beginning to think that you may sincerely misunderstand how it worked. You don't have to like it, but you ought to not like what actually happened.

WT did not recieve $50,000. I'm not sure what the actual total was off the top of my head, but I'm not sure it's anybody's business anyway. I hope you'll accept that it was significantly less, less than half I think. The reason is that at the time of the settlement we still owed our lawyers money. I don't know if you've ever noticed but they're kind of expensive. Ours works hard and he worked on these two cases for over a year. The $50,000 was actually significantly less than his total bill.

He refunded us the amount we had paid him so far. As I said before, that amount did not cover the other costs we had incurred internally working on the cases, mostly salaries, and some consulting fees to expert witnesses. So yes, the "monetary award" went in our bank account, but it did not represent any kind of "profit." Sueing the government is not some kind of cash cow. The whole thing cost many tens of thousands dollars more than we got back. We had less money in our "coffers" than we did when we started, but you can't even talk about WT having any coffers, really. Like most non-profits, WT leads a fairly hand-to-mouth existence. You can believe that or not.

To be honest, this is more than I'd like to be sharing, but I feel like I have to correct this misconception that you and some others seem to be laboring under. LIke I said, you ought to not like what actually happened, instead of just what you think happened.

And on your last post. Washington Trout has never actually called for the closing of all hatcheries state wide. I know how you'll respond to that, but I just wanted to remind everybody of that FACT. But more importantly, WT has never advocated, and never will, for closing hatcheries "and nothing else." We have never said, and never will, that closing hatcheries is some kind of magic bullet that will recover salmon all by itself.

What we have said, again and again, is that serious hatchery reform (which we believe will likely have to include closing many hatcheries), is a necessary component of a comprehensive salmon-recovery program, which must also include significantly reducing commercial, tribal, (and possibly sport) harvest, and major habitat preservation and recovery efforts.

As I have said here again and again, WT works equally hard on all three issues, because we believe, based on the preponderence of the current evidence, that no one approach will work without the other two.

Ramon Vanden Brulle
Washington Trout

I have a copy of the settlement here and not enough time to get it out but I remember the settlement cash amount to be around $47,000. That money was paid to WT. Now I simply asked if the lawyers got the money and then gave it back to WT. It sounds like the did a big part of their work Pro Bono.

I agree with the assessment that Wt is doing more than just hatchery reform work. I am still not convinced that the end game isn't to close hatcheries. I would see that as viable after the rest of the no brainer stuff is done first.

thanks for taking the time to respond.

GP2,

My feelings are mixed, but I agree with you.. their ultimate agenda is to get rid of the hatcheries period!

The word "many" scares me! Yet, "WT has never actually called for the closing of all hatcheries." Do they mean all but one or just the salmon hatcheries?

Something smells fishy....

I really am trying to be civil and have an honest discussion but something smells to me too. Kind of a "both sides of the fence deaL"

I will say that writing here is very educational. It is an interesting if not altogether easy excercise to write for an audience that will parse every word.

Look folks, I am sincerely working on answering grandpa2's request for a description of an "acceptable" hatchery. I hope you will appreciate all the reasons why WT does not take that description lightly. Obviously, it is an issue we have put a lot of consideration and time into. It's something that we need to get right, and of course the target is pretty squishy. There is some work just published and going on right now in several quarters that will bear directly on this issue.

I'm not trying to cop out. We certainly have some ideas, and I'll be happy to share them. We make some concrete suggestions in our HGMP comments (we do suggest that WDFW consider closure for many programs, but we also recommend other measures well short of that option).

WT does accept that there likely are ways for WDFW to responsibly produce hatchery salmon and steelhead. Please take that at face value. I don't mean just trout hatcheries, or only one salmon hatchery. When I say many hatcheries may have to close, I mean many (more than you may like), but I don't mean all or likely even close to all.

I'm not trying to pull any fast ones. If you'll forbear me some time and a little benefit of the doubt in the meantime, I will provide a more specific answer.

Ramon Vanden Brulle
Washington Trout

Mr. Vanden Brulle,

Thank you for taking the time to state some of the particulars of the Washington Trout position on this subject. It should be easy to appreciate the difficulties involved in providing a statement describing the position of an organization subject to the skepticism you have encountered from the sport fishing community. I hope many others here appreciate your efforts as I do.

We may disagree on many things and agree on some others but without comprehension of one another's viewpoints it is impossible to understand or resolve the differences.

Ramon VP,
Just wondering if you had seen this hatchery program and what you think of it?
http://www.riversinletresort.com/hatchery.htm

The River's Inlet and Hakai Pass experiment is a good example of some things being tried right here in Washington. Using hatchery techniques to improve the survival of native stocks and not simply dumping a ton of supplemental hatchery fish . sometimes from completely different river systems, into a river to increase returning numbers. What is happening here is an aid to wild fish survival which I think is an excellent idea. This is reform worthy of support.

I'm sorry but that was not a very intelligent or meaningful reply. Kind of like "If the baby hadn't pooped her pants she wouldn't need a new diaper. SO????

Since we are mentioning examples of successful hatchery operations the following article about the Baker Lake sockeye might be of interest.

The Baker sockeye that boast ancestry to the introduced fish that parented the hundreds of thousands of naturally spawning Lake Washington sockeye nearly faced extinction.

Although they will never flourish as a truly wild stock so long as the Baker Dams are in place without natural fish passage accommodations, they are now returning annually in numbers that are probably greater than those ever seen by mankind before.

And for this we can thank the PUD operated spawning and passage operations.

See: Seattle Post Intelligencer Article .

Grandpa,
Do you know if thats the kinda hatchery work Long Live The Kings is doing on Hood Canal??
The Rivers Inlet type program?

duro..I do not know much about the hood canal hatchery but I'll find out and report back...thanks for asking

Thanks for the linc AuntyM

AuntyM

Thanks for the link....Hopefully the nay sayers can read this and see that good things do come from some hatchery programs. Wild fish can be helped along by programs such as this . Reforms are happening despite what WT and alot of their blind supporters would have us believe.

The end goal of these programs is a selfsustaing population of fish.Ultimately no hatchery would be needed.Succes is measured in these brood stock reproducing on there own.Ultimately no hatchery.

Ramon must have forgot about this or does the no responce mean that WT cant define what an exceptable hatchery is? I still dont think they would ever endorse any hatchery program no matter how perfect it is.

I see ramons been back maybe he can answer what he said he would on this thread.

can you post a link to a perfect hatchery, i`d like to read about it, thanks.

Boater,
You better read my post again you did not understand it. I didnt say that our hatcherys were perfect.I did say WT wouldnt endorce one if there was such a thing.