In general I think the hatchery system is wrongheaded....the following is my best effort at describing why I feel the way I do. I hope my efforts here will be enough to convince some of you that the 'Hidden Agenda' of WT may be the only way to save wild fish populations in our state. At the very least I would hope you just take my opinion into consideration, I suppose that's all one can ever ask in these conversations. BTW, I've never found WT's 'agenda' to be 'hidden', all I need to know about them is contained in their mission statement, which coincidentally is pretty close to the mission statements of Wyoming Trout, Colorado Trout, Montana Trout, Idaho Trout, Oregon Trout, California Trout etc, etc...

This is a layman's explanation, based on opinion, emotion and what I believe to be facts. Hopefully Smalma or Salmo G. will let me know if I've got something completely wrong here....

Hatcheries should NEVER have been on our rivers in the first place. There were no considerations made at the time for how these hatcheries would affect wild fish populations in their respective watersheds. Now that wild fish populations are in jeapordy throughout Puget Sound and even Washington state as a whole, WDFW asks that someone prove there is an impact before the hatcheries are removed? I hope I've got it wrong because that sounds like incredibly backward thinking to me.

In my opinion hatcheries need to justify their own existence. The burden of proof should lie with the IMPACTER not the IMPACTED. In that light I would like to see each and every hatchery in our state closed until they can prove:

1) There are no wild fish left in their respective watersheds, or that the wild populations that do exist are considered beyond the ability to recover ...in this case a I think a hatchery is a good idea...

or

2) They have no significant impact on wild fish populations. That's right, here is where the burden of proof I spoke of above comes into play. The health and vitality of a species native to our rivers is at stake...those that wipe their butts with the spotted owl will take issue with this of course because it puts the welfare of an animal above the welfare of an economy, which affects people. In my opinion this is the single most important fulcrum dividing sportsfishermen. Fish first or fishing first?

For me, there is no question. If the hatchery system were to be enacted today they would have to prove these things anyway. That they didn't have to at their inception can be fixed by making them do it now.

The thing that most people on the other side of this argument fail to see is that I am willing to put my rod away for good if it means even just a chance at recovery for wild fish populations. Already I have taken as many steps as I possibly can to minimize my personal impact, limiting my fishing to rivers whose native populations are relatively healthy, I've educated myself as to the proper way to handle fish for release, I don't use bait during months where heavy smolt populations are present...the list goes on...I'm sure there is more I can do, maybe someday I will be as committed to this idea as WT.

Don't for a minute think I am foolish enough to think that this is an end all solution. With hatcheries gone it would create quite a dilemma for commercial fishermen and the tribes. As far as commercial fishing, at least in Puget Sound goes, no sport fishery = no commercial fishery period, IMO.

The tribes are a different issue entirely. I have no answer here...seems like one for the litigators. The first thought that comes to mind is that if you have a casino generating mega-bucks for the people of your reservation or tribe, how on earth can you justify the need to harvest fish from the river? Don't get me wrong, no one would cheer louder than I if the Quillayutes decided tomorrow that they were going to revert to the fishing methods of their ancestors....whatever those are. Preserving culture, thumbs up...fishing native stocks into exinction, thumbs down. The rub though is that not all of the different tribes have casinos, the biggest source of income for the Hoh tribe for example is wild salmon and steelhead. Who am I or anyone else for that matter to take that away from them?

I never claimed to have the answers. It cracks me up when people do, its usually a crystal clear indication that they are to be ignored. All I have is my opinion, thankfully I've learned over the years that if hold onto that too tightly it will melt away in my hands, leaving me with nothing.

Even though we have divergent opinions about the necessity of hatcheries I hope that either Smalma or Salmo will take the time to share their ideas about why I am wrong, or what misinterpretations of fact I may be incorporating into my logic. If nothing else your excellent counter-points always leave me re-examining my positions, which IMO is the only to way to continue to learn and evolve.

If you've made it this far....thank you.