Grandpa,

You continue to go on about how "misleading" I am, but you never offer specifics, so I still don't know what you're talking about. Once again, here is WT's hatchery position: hatcheries do more harm than good; they are jeopardizing chinook recovery in Puget Sound and violating the ESA; they MUST be significantly reformed, and if they can't or won't, they should be closed; serious reform will have to include signifcant reductions in production, and likely the termination of some programs. Our position is based on our review and understanding of the current evidence.

I have come to accept that this position is apparently beyond your ability to comprehend, but I believe that for most people, it is fairly clear. You clearly don't like what WT has to say, but that doesn't make it misleading.

Let's talk about something that is misleading.

You present a quote from my "term paper" (typical of you to slip in childish little insults, trying to bait people into responding so you can accuse them of getting personal):

"The HGMPs consistently fail to discuss why it is socially, economically, or biologically necessary, advisable, or even beneficial to provide fish for harvest using the described program."

Actually, I think you leave out the last few words. At any rate, by presenting the quote out of context, you're trying to imply that this is proof that WT is "anti-fishing." If you had quoted the whole paragragh, the message changes:

"Many (HGMPs) fail to even describe in sufficient detail what contribution the program is providing to any harvest benefit. Measures to assure that “adverse genetic, demographic or ecological effects on listed fish” are being minimized are never adequately described. Indeed, the level of these effects that WDFW would consider adequately “minimized” is never identified, nor is any effort to monitor how and when these effects will indeed be minimized described in any detail."

Our comments go on to add:

"THERE LIKELY ARE SEVERAL AND VARIED JUSTIFICATIONS FOR PROVIDING FISH FOR HARVEST (empahsis added here). They should be listed and described in sufficient detail to be evaluated and weighed objectively against all direct and indirect take of listed species likely to occur as a result of the program. "

I believe that makes it clear that we're asking for more detail, not trying to claim that there is no such thing as benefit from fishing. You said that you read all 100 pages of our comments so I'm not sure how you missed this stuff, but hopefully this will make our case more clear:

"The intent of the HGMP Template and process would appear to be to evaluate several broad factors -- the justification for or benefits derived from a particular hatchery program, the current state of the affected listed population, the potential for the program to take listed species, and the specific measures proposed by the program proponents to minimize that take (including the ongoing monitoring and evaluation of those measures) -- and to weigh these factors against each other in order to determine if take authorization is warranted. In general, the responses provided to individual queries in the HGMP Template that would address these factors are cursory, lacking in sufficient detail, and often inappropriate."

The HGMPs are like little cost-benefit analyses. You can't make the analysis without detailed info about the "costs" and the "benefits." We're not saying that fishing isn't a benefit; we're saying WDFW has a responsibility to quantify it, so it can be weighed against the harm that WDFW and NMFS both acknowledge that hatcheries do. But of course the HGMPs don't quantify the harm either (even though they're required to), so there's not even anyplace to start.

Would you think that a logging application was worth approving if it said only: We think there's a river in there somewhwere, and there's likely fish in it; We are convinced, based on nothing we want to share, that the way we have always logged does a good enough job of protecting salmon, so that's pretty much how we plan to do this; however, we don't want to say how, but we promise (because youre' forcing us) to do whatever we think is best to protect the fish, even though we don't think that logging can really hurt them (by the way, we have no plan to determine whether we're hurting the fish or not; no news is good news!). That's about the level of the HGMPs. Of course denying a logging permit wouldn't gore your own ox, would it grandpa?

It's not that WDFW doesn't have the answers; it's that the answers make them nervous. by leaving the details out, WDFW may be hoping we'll all assume that the "costs" to listed fish are lower than they actually are, and the benefits higher. WDFW may be worried that an accurate analysis, based on all the available information, might force them to make reductions to the Puget Sound hathcery program that they would rather not make. Of course that may not be true, but there's no way to know without the facts that WDFW has so far not provided. If WDFW truly cannot answer these questions, then they should scale the program down to experimetal size and use it to come up with the answers. As it stands, the overall program is too big to accomodate the level of uncertainty presented in the HGMPs.

I know that it's easier for you to attack and discredit WT's motives and "agenda" than it is to actually try to address the issues we raise in our comments, but it's dishonest, misleading, and childish. Read the HGMPs, read our comments (all the way through), and then tell me, point by point, where WT is wrong.

As a couple of side notes, trying to make "points" by attacking and making fun of how you think other people like to fish, even in "boutique" fly-fisheries, is just childish, not to mention ugly. You're going to do whatever you feel like, but I would appreciate it if you didn't refer to me as "ramon." We are not friends. Again, I have no power to make you do anything, but I just want to make sure you know that it's "ramon vb," "WT Communications Director Ramon Vanden Brulle," or "Mr Vanden Brulle" to you.

Auntie M:

WDFW is under no obligation whatsoever to answer to the HSRG, or to follow any of their recommendations. Which is good for WDFW, because according to the HGMPs, WDFW will apparently not be implementing any of the HSRG recommendations. The HGMP template specifically asks how the particular hatchery program "alligns with" any other "ESU-wide" hatchery-management plans or processes. Applicants are not required to follow any other "ESU-wide" plan, but they are required to explain why they're not. None of the HGMPs even mention the HSRG! None of the proposed practices in any of the individual HGMPs appear to allign with any HGMP recommendations.

I'd be interested too to find out what Long Live the Kings and the HSRG think of that. The HSRG process could be perfect but still meaningless if it is never implemented.

Ramon Vanden Brulle, Communications Director
Washington Trout