I would like to take the opportunity to respond on behalf of Washington Trout. We appreciate the opinions expressed on this forum, from both our detractors and our defenders. Others have articulated here and on other threads some of the scientific basis for the position that hatcheries have been a factor in salmon and steelhead declines, and that their productive role in recovery will be very limited at best. My goal here is not to add to that debate (although perhaps at some other time...), but rather to just outline WT's position, goals, and motivations regarding the action at issue here: our filing of a 60-day notice of intent to sue WDFW over their Puget Sound chinook-hatchery program.

Technically, we say in our 60-day notice that we will seek "relief" from the courts, which implies we will sue to shut down the hatcheries, and that's what we said we're prepared to do in our press release (and I suppose we would be prepared to do that if necessary). But really what we're saying is that WDFW needs to start complying with the law. Their hatcheries are currently violating the ESA and they have to stop. Yes in many cases they would have to shut down the hatcheries to do that, but probabaly not in all cases. Further, WDFW has a mechanism under the ESA 4d Rule to recieve exemption from ESA enforcement for its hatchery program. They can submit "Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans" to NMFS for approval (and should have a long time ago). These HGMPs would describe how WDFW will minimize or mitigate the harm the hatcheries do to listed wild fish, and/or make the case for how the "benefits" of the hatchery program outweigh or justify whatever harm they do. They've had since June 2000 to prepare and submit the HGMPs. So far they haven't, and they continually push back their promised deadlines. (Now they're saying "maybe" by the end of this year.) If they do have a plan for modifying operations or a case for justifying current operations, we want to see it, review it, and offer input (as is ours and everyone else's right under the 4d Rule). At this point we have no confidence that we will see it in a timely fashion without applying pressure. After all, these chinook are THREATENED with extinction. Isn't time of the essence?

It boils down to this: WDFW has to comply, just like everybody else, with the ESA; they could do it by ceasing the harm they are causing listed fish through the hatchery program (even if that means temporarily or permanently shutting down some hatcheries), or they could do it by using their 4d option of making a publicly-reviewed case for an exemption. They have done neither. The goal of our 60-day notice is to force at least one or the other.

WT's sole mission is the protection and recovery of wild, native fish; we do not advocate for sportfishing interests. But we have not "decalred war" on recreational fishing by "focusing" on hatcheries and "ignoring" harvest and habitat. First, WT is not against more fish in the rivers; we simply believe that the science points us in a clear direction toward that goal of healthy, harvestable fish populations; current hatchery management will not take us in that direction. Second, even if it DID shut them all down, this suit would affect only 18 out of the 55 state, tribal, and federal hatcheries in Puget Sound (over a hundred throughout the state). And finally, WT works on ALL issues affecting wild fish, and recreational fishers HAVE NO BETTER FRIENDS THAN WT on habitat issues, and ALMOST NO OTHER FRIENDS BESIDES WT on harvest (including tribal harvest) issues.

You should all know (and probably do) that WT is involved in a seperate suit regarding the Tokul Creek steelhead hatchery, alleging site impacts that harm listed chinook (fish-passage barrier, unscreeened water intake, and habitat degradation associated with bank-hardening to protect the facility grounds from flooding). We are not at this time contemplating any specific actions targeting any other hatcheries besides Tokul and the 18 listed in ur 60-day notice. I would note however, that WDFW acknowledges site impacts that are likely harming listed fish at at least 30 hatcheries throughout the state, making them vulnerable to similar suits.

A few weeks ago, WDFW made a big stink out of fining one guy for poaching listed chinook on the Skagit River, and carried on about how enforcing the law is their "top priority." If that's so, all we're really asking them to do is look in the mirror. They will say they're "working on it" and now we're just getting in their way. Well, they've had TWO YEARS to "work on it" and we haven't seen anything yet. When NMFS adopted the 4d rule in June 2000, they gave everyone until Jan 2001 to do things like prepare and submit HGMPs. That 6-month grace period ended a year and a half ago, and now WDFW says they need MORE time (without saying how much more), in the meantime continuing to run the hatcheries exactly as they always have. How much time do the fish have? If WDFW does have a solution to propose, great. They have 60 days to propose it (I guess 50-something now).

Washington Trout is fighting for better forest managemnt, better land-use regulations re agriculture and development, and more consistent application and eforcement of existing environmental laws including the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and Washington's Hydraulic Code. We are fighting daily for commercial and tribal salmon-harvest management that makes sense, and that will allow depressed stocks to recover. We are currently sueing the National Marine Fisheries Service over Puget Sound harvest-management, trying to reduce harvest levels and modify commercial-fishing practices. We carry out important research, and design and implement model habitat-retoration projects. In short, we are working every day to protect and recover Washington's wild fish and their habitats. Learn more about WT at www.washingtontrout.org

Ramon Vanden Brulle,
Communications Director
Washington Trout