Well those are at least some fair questions (by and large). I am leaving for the day so I can;t give each of them the time they deserve here, but I will get back with more thorough replies.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of an existing hatchery program that WT would "applaud" (outside of a couple emergency rescue operations like Snake River sockeye, but I don't think that's what you're looking for). I will look and see if I can come up with anything though. We certainly could "envision" an acceptable hatchery program, and with a little more time, I'll be happy to describe what one could look like.

WT supports all efforts at hatchery reform. We may not think they go far enough, and if they don't we would continue to press for more, but we would never let perfect become the enemy of good. Having said that, I will have to admit that WT is skeptical of Mr Frank's assessment, both on the science and as a matter of credibility. I am by no means trying to imply that Mr Frank is at all dishonest, but I hope even you would agree with me that the NW Indian Fisheries Commission has a much more obvious "interest' and "agenda" on this issue than WT does; hatcheries are a pretty straightforwardly economic issue for them.

I guess I can't expect too much from you, so your last question, a fairly clumsy attempt to continue discrediting WT, does not surprize, or even disappoint me. Whatever. Our lawyers refunded to us the amount we had paid them for the work they did up to the point of the settlement. While we were happy to recoup that money, it still did not cover our internal staff costs from working on the two cases for over a year. I know what you like to think, but this is hardly like hitting a jackpot at the slots.

I'm still waiting for a substantive question directly related to what WT submitted regarding WDFW's Puget Sound hatchery programs, but this is definitely an improvement. I will be getting back to you.

Ramon Vanden Brulle
Washington Trout