Observations:

1) As a group, we're more interested in our selfish opportunity to fish recreationally than to conserve the resource upon which our recreation depends. And some of us wonder why the general public doesn't realize that anglers are the "true" friends of the fish. "Whatever," as my kids would say. But our responses here are the living proof of our collective ineffectiveness at championing our causes.

2) WT's mission is a noble one, and I support it. However, (to adopt the theme of the day) a wise general picks his battles carefully if he can, and does not focus on winning small battles at the expense of losing the war. Just an awkward way of saying that I'm disappointed that WT chooses to engage in actions that have a higher public profile instead of engaging in the actions that could do much more for the conservation of wild fish.

3) WT can sue, but they have to prove their case. Their allegations are flawed. Do larger hatchery smolts eat smaller wild smolts? Of course - if it is in their nature and provided they have the opportunity to do so. Some, if not most or all, Puget Sound hatcheries have been delaying the release of their coho until June 1 to protect chum and pink smolts which are smaller than wild chinook and are favored targets of hatchery coho. Most, but not all, wild chinook smolts are in the estuary by June 1. So, the situation isn't perfect, but a lot of protection is already provided by current hatchery operations. There may be room for improvement.

Secondly, and perhaps Smalma will help with this, I thought rainbow trout (including steelhead) don't usually become piscivorous (fish eating) until they are about a foot long, larger than most smolts. I know that steelhead smolts in a trap box, for instance, will eat anything, including smaller fish, when the opportunity presents itself. However, I think that in the natural environment, their diet is restricted to insects and other aquatic invertebrates until the steelhead become larger. So for starters, I think perhaps WDFW and NMFS will only have limited agreement with WT's allegations.

4) It's not illegal to take a listed species - IF you have an incidental take statement or permit or are covered by a 4(d) rule. WDFW's hatcheries could obtain - and should - such coverage through formal consultation with NMFS, which I'm surprised if that hasn't already been done. But then, I get surprised all the time.

5) Fly fishermen only become "holier than thou" when thou makes nasty dipsh!t statements against them or about them.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.