I said I would be happy to respond to specific queries. The problem is that whenever I post, it creates a flurry of responses, and the format on this board doesn't allow me to review all the posts while I'm responding. If I miss anybody, I'm sure you'll let me know.

Auntie,

I can take the heat. It's my job. I will say that in court, the kind of childish crap that I am objecting to here would simply not be allowed. You said you think debate is a good thing. How about practicing it? IN case you didn't know, it involves speaking to the points your opponent raises. Instead of calling me names or attacking my character, speak to some of the points I actually made in my last post. I'll remind you of two: DO you believe WT is involved enough in harvest issues? Do you think implying that we are capable of criminal behavior is going too far?

Smalma

First, let me say that my reference to your post wasn't so much directed at you as at your acolytes, who I believe act hypocrytically when they are willing to cite your expert opinion as objective truth when you tell them what they want to hear, but then seem to find you as human as the rest of us when you challenge some of their beliefs. To be frank, I really would prefer not going toe to toe with you in this forum. I think we can accomplish more by just presenting our competing positions rather than directing our posts to each other. You're a good advocate for your position, and I try my best; maybe we can leave it at that.

Havng said that, I find it near impossible to debate you on issues of who is being misleading. I fnd that you often seem to misinterpret my remarks or mischaracterise my positions, making elaborate, often eloquent cases against something I didn't say. It's an old technique.

You disagree with WT's interpretation of the evidence. For instance, we believe the Feather River Study does bear on this case; that's why we included it in our complaint and in the expert declaration by Sam Wright supporting the complaint. You think it isn't or shouldn't be relevant. You can make the case why you think so, but disagreement doesn't make either of our positions misleading.

You know as well as I do that a Press Release is an advocacy tool where WT gets to make its case. If you'll pardon me, I'll allow WDFW to make it's own case. So far they haven't said anything (publicly) about the Feather River citation. They have publicly made misrepresentations of basic facts. For instance, the timing of when they turned in applications for take authorization for the hatcheries. They said they turned them in in 2001. That's just not true, not a matter of their interptretation. They also said they have indication the "no predation is occuring." Is no predation occuring? Is that what WDFW knows?

And finally, I'm sorry but I cannot take seriously your accusations of being misleading in the context of this particular debate when you sign the post "smalma."

Fish Pirate

I've followed your posts with interest on other boards. I thought you were better informed. WT has been and is significantly involved in the Cedar River hatchery issue. We brought a case against the city of Seattle in 1999 over the inadequacy of the EIS for the Cedar River Habitat Conservation Plan, which included the plans for the proposed sockeye hatchery. We are working with the city of Seattle and other stakeholders to improve the planned operations of the hatchery by serving on the Cedar River Anadromous Fish Committee. Other members of that committee have publicly accused us of trying to block the hatchery because we are pressing for scientifically sound planning and operation of the facility (which is really our goal in the PS case). So there you go.

Driftboater.

WT endorsed the trap-ban initiative (I assume that's what you're talking about), as did many other environmental organizations. We never gave it any money. We endorsed it for the same fundamental reason we endorsed the net-ban initiative. The state was inadequately managing small mammal trapping, to the detriment of a variety of resources (including some wild fish) and seemed intransigent about making improvement, so a ban became the best option by default. I can not say for sure what we will do if the initiative proponents refile. We did endorse it the first time, so it is a possibility, but we would have to look at the new initiative and conditions on the ground.

Incidentally, that is the same position we are taking in our hatchery suit. We are saying that hatcheries are currently being operated in a way that is harming PS chinook, and that proposed changes don't go far enough to mitigate that harm. If WDFW can't or won't improve its hatchery practices, then they should shut them down. That is different than saying the hatcheries MUST be shut down. Do you all believe that they only way they can be improved is to be shut down?

Grandpa

I told you I will not answer your posts. If you have a legitimate question, ask an adult to post it for you.

Ramon Vanden Brulle,
Washington Trout