Plunker,

WT's primary goal is wild fish recovery. If you sincerely believe that "the need for recovery" is some invention of WT's, and that salmon and steelhead stocks are in reality doing OK, then there is no reason for us to address each other at all. I don't mean to get personal, but I'm sorry; that is an assinine argument that NO credible observer would even begin to entertain. And for the record, while WT supports all current salmon and steelhead listings as biologically and legally credible, it has not been "instrumental" in the listing of any species.

Duroboat:

I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about. WT is not anti fishing; we're not even anti harvest. This is not about saving individual fish from any harm whatsoever, it's about managing the resource (yes we believe it is a resource to be used - sustainably) responsibly to minimize harm to the population as a whole. There is nothing even inconsistent, let alone hypocritical, between that position and the simple act of fishing responsibly.

If a memeber of WT fished in closed waters, or over a population of fish where current regulations were not responsible enough to ensure the overall poulation's health, that might be a different matter. There are some open waters that I wouldn't fish, and some species/populations I leave alone. I don't think people should fish over endangered chinook and steelhead on the Methow. But that doesn't make me a hypocrite if I fish for steelhead on the Sol Duc, where all indications are that the population is healthy. Merely going fishing, while advocating for better management, does not automatically create any conflict that I see.

But here we are again talking about WT. Is that really the issue? Is nobody interested in what hatchery-management plan WDFW is proposing, and what WT had to say about it?

Ramon Vanden Brulle
Washington Trout