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.