Which criticisms are you ignoring, that you quoted WT's comments out of context in an effort to mislead, that you care more about your own short-term interests than you do about whether WDFW adequately meets its responsibilities, or that you consistently employ dishonest, unfair, and juvenile debating techniques? You can ignore them all you like; I believe most objective observers would consider them valid, no matter where they came from.


The title of this thread is "Washington Trout Is At It Again!" The "It" that were are apparently "At" is that we drafted and submitted comments to WDFW critical of their HGMPs, which amount to WDFW's proposal to run their Puget Sound hatchery programs in a way that won't illegally impair chinook recovery, a rather important matter. In another apparently extreme move, we excercised our right to take part in a public review of WDFW's proposal to manage a public resource, and found it inadequate.

So again I ask you (or anyone) to read any portion of WT's comments, examine it relative to the relevant passage of the relevant HGMP, and tell us all where and how it is inaccurate, unfair, or extreme. I am enthusiastic about discussing the actual "It," rather than just whether WT is anti fishing or not. You say you don't support WT's "agenda" on hatcheries. How about WDFW's? They've put it down in black and white. Defend it, and tell us all, if you can, specifically where WT is wrong.

All I'm asking for is an opportunity to let the issues and positions speak for themselves. In all this time, we have still never discussed the relative merits of WT's position in any detail. Some people seem to be satisfied with a "if WT says it, I'm agin' it" reaction, but others might want to know exaclty what it is we said. I know what you think about me now; let's move on. It's one thing to try and discredit the messenger, but at some point we should actually address the message.

Ramon Vanden Brulle
Washington Trout