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????