As to the motivations of Washington Trout, by now it should be very obvious to everyone. They don't like hatcheries and they look for opportunities to strike blows at the hatchery system where they can. I can fault the department for leaving themselves open for lawsuits, but that does not take the responsibility away from the group looking for opportunity to sue. There are a few other organizations that quietly don't like hatcheries. Unlike Washington Trout, these organizations have not yet came to the conclusion that the minimal problems directly related to hatcheries are worth jeopardizing the recreational opportunity enjoyed by so many of us as well as the Tribal and non-tribal commercial opportunities enjoyed by so few of us. The economic benefit our sport brings, the political support our numbers bring, and the number of habitat restoration projects people who fish are responsible for combine to make an impact that far outweighs any negative impacts of hatcheries. And it is not as if the problems associated with hatcheries are not being identified, it seem that Washington Trout is the only organization who in unwilling to allow for the studies to be completed and the data to be analyzed so the correct decisions can be made. Washington Trout would like us to use evidence from out of state to apply to our hatcheries.

There is an obvious pattern here. This is at least the fourth time that I am aware of that Washington Trout has taken action against hatcheries. All would impact sport fishing, albeit in different ways.

Washington Trout has been the primary opponent of the permanent Sockeye hatchery project. This publicly supported project is under the guidance of some of the most respected salmon minds around. (John McGlenn of TetraTech/KCM, Jim Lichatowich author of "Salmon Without Rivers"; Dr. Rick Williams salmon geneticist, Dr. Tom Quinn U. of Washington fisheries professor; Dr. John Burke Alaska sockeye enhancement expert; and Eric Prestegard Alaska sockey enhancement expert) This hatchery project is completely different and will be capable of testing several new ideas about how to better run hatcheries in the future. It is obvious why they don't support it.

Then there was the lawsuit late last year most of you know about which would close the chinook producing hatcheries in Puget Sound. Although Ramone did write online that they would be prepared to pursue closing hatcheries if it came down to it, Ramone maintained that they really wanted to force the department to complete the Hatchery Genetic Management Plan (HGMP) so the department could attempt to gain 4D ESA compliance for their hatcheries. I have read the HGMP for Chinook that has been sent to NOAA. That document speaks more to what they have already done to alleviate the problems than what they plan to do, so for anyone to say that they department has not made any effort to change hatchery practices is misinformed. I have been told that the department currently has the steelhead and Coho HGMP in to NOAA for review. As far as I know this lawsuit is still somewhere in our federal legal system.

Now we have this lawsuit and the requested injunction to eliminate this years hatchery production, death to our Puget Sound region fisheries. I suppose local anglers can be content with a nice Chum dinner every fall, or a few pink filets every other year, not. Sorry Ted, sorry John, it really did not do all that much to save salmon, it is too bad you could not keep your stores open. Can you imagine outdoor emporium and Sportco with only 2 isles of fishing gear and a massive display of power bait? There is really no way to talk out of this one. There is no lack of an HGMP to fall back on. The legal documents are based on hatchery fish eating wild fish so they can't say that they are pushing for hatchery reform. We can not breed fish to not eat fish. How long would a Coho survive in the ocean if the hatcheries could breed out the instinct to eat fish? That being said, you would think that with all the studies being done up here, somewhere there would be documentation of this being a primary issue in our local rivers. Maybe it is an issue somewhere in Puget Sound, or maybe it is not. Lets find out. But to take steps to eliminated hatchery production as a pre-emptive step is irresponsible to society considering that the listed Chinook are not at imminent risk of going extinct (check the definition of threatened under the ESA). Washington Trout is displaying the same type of strategy that lead RFA to pursuing the Freedom to Fish Act (which has nothing to do with salmon). They want to change the rules so that all they have to do is suggest there is a problem and shut the fisheries down until proof is shown otherwise.

So what is next. Only a week ago Ramone posted a message on this board calling for people to applaud Congressman Dicks for pushing through legislation that would require clipping of all hatchery fish funded by federal money. Certainly a worthwhile cause, something we all can support. But wait, what is in it for Washington Trout. Obviously it fits their agenda to have selective fisheries. Less wild fish harvest, a responsible step. It also will allow for much more significant study of wild and hatchery fish interactions. Fine by me, it is something we need to sort out. That data would really help us to improve hatchery practices. But given the pattern Washington Trout is presenting, does anyone honestly think that they are looking for anything except reason to close hatcheries in that data?

Washington trout unfortunately has chosen to put step 2 before step 1 in this process. Step 1 is Habitat. With or without hatcheries, we risk the existence of our fish without habitat. And not just protecting what habitat we have, we need to role back the clock if we plan to fish for wild fish. Given the fact that the power in politics ebbs and flows between those who appreciate the needs of nature and those who don't, it is going to be a long while before we see the kind of habitat restoration to make the difference. In the mean time, I believe I share one thing with all anglers in that I want to see lots and lots and lots of fish. It would be great if many of them were wild. It isn't great. But there is something still swimming in there that looks awfully good. I would rather have hatchery fish than no fish.

Grandpa, I think this covered most of your comments. Oh, I will give Washington Trout a little credit where it due. The took a firm stand against the tangle net fishery in the Columbia. They can't claim they were the reason the fishery was so strictly enforced this year, neither can RFA although we weighed in on it as well. There are a couple other organizations that deserve the majority of the credit and carried most of the load.

Baitchucker, thanks for the clarification, I just misread your intentions, thanks for taking the initiative.