Hey 'Fly,

Before you go and shoot up the local Post office, stop, take a deep breath, let go of some of that anger, and read this reply off another BB from Todd Ripley. Todd, as you know, is a regular here too, and I believe that his assessment of this whole issue will clear things up just a little bit for you, and everyone else that is on the verge of having a heart attack.

Posted by Todd Ripley:

1. WT has been trying for years to get the impassable dam on Tokul Creek, owned and operated by WDFW to get water for the TC hatchery, upgraded to allow ESA-listed chinook to go by it and spawn. As of yet, the state has done nothing about it. That dam is in direct violation of the ESA...

2. Failures in attempts to negotiate or have useful conversations generally end up in court. Does suing for the end of operations of those hatcheries mean that they will end? The answer is no, at least not if the state decides to bring their operations into compliance with the law.

3. If fishermen want to make sure that those hatcheries do not close, don't attack WT for suing over their non-compliance. Get on the state's back for not complying with the law. If the hatchery operations were lawful, there would be no basis for a lawsuit, nothing to sue over.

Who's the bad guy here?

No one, actually.

WT wants the hatcheries to be in compliance with the law. Anyone who doesn't like that has a fairly serious problem, in my book.

WDFW wants the hatcheries to be in compliance with the law. The problem is that they don't have the money to fix them.

Is there some sort of middle ground? Yes, there is. The middle ground is improved compliance, better management with existing financial resources.

How does that come about? Voluntarily, or through a structured settlement with promises in the context of a lawsuit.

Has it happened voluntarily? No.

Will these hatcheries close? Probably not.

What likely will happen is that the lawsuit will be settled if certain conditions are met by WDFW. What they are, I don't know.

I do have a strong feeling about one, though. Tokul Creek wouldn't even be on that list if a concrete dam twenty feet wide and four feet tall was either equipped with a fish ladder or removed entirely and a different water withdrawal system were set up. WT has been asking for this ESA-mandated action for a long time, and has received nothing back.

Hence, a lawsuit.

This isn't about hatchery vs. wild fish, it's not about barbless flyflingers vs. bait fishing bonkers, and it's not about commercial fishing and treaty fishing.

It's about specific violations of state and federal laws that are going on continually, and have been doing so for quite a while. WDFW probably doesn't have the funding to fix all of them, but probably wouldn't mind being forced to fix them via settlement of a lawsuit.

Money to do that, if not new, would have to be reallocated from other places.

I'd rather see ten well-run hatcheries, in substantial if not complete compliance with the law, than twenty way out of compliance.

We'll see how it turns out...

Fish on...

Todd