Geoduck

Actually, nothing in my job description would absolutely require me to post on this board; I drafted and broadcast a Press Release, and WT sent out an "Action Alert" to our own mailing list; we also posted on several boards, but not all. I post here because I like you folks so much.

Seriously, this is a big forum, and all things considered, worth the abuse. But I do want to note that I don't HAVE to come here (and you're right: I probably wouldn't off the clock), and that all things considered, posting this particular info on this board would appear to be contrary to WT's interests (I imagine that many comments that I might solicit from this board would be opposed to WT's position), so I hope you can appreciate that.

Right now, WT does not have a position on the proposed bait ban. We, along with others, do believe that recreational angling management must acknowledge and cope with steelhead and salmon impacts at all life history stages, but we have not analysed whether this particular proposal is an appropriate response. Sorry if that seems like I'm dodging, but we are working on the issue generally, most notably within the Wild Steelhead Coalition's "steelhead summit" process.

On your second question, I wish I could offer you a firm deadline on when we will post our comments. They will likely dribble out as we finish them for each individual HGMP. My own hope is that we can post at least drafts of most of our comments by the middle of the comment period, so that they can actually be of help to anyone interested in submitting their own comments (either to agree or disagree with us). Hopefully some will be on the website before that.

We will obviously focus first on the programs that were cited in our suits (which does not incude every HGMP on WDFW's list). I can tell you that we will be looking hard at the Skagit, Snohomish, Green, Puyallup, and some Hood Canal systems.

Thanks for the civil inquiry.

Ramon Vanden Brulle
Washington Trout