Grandpa 2,

I'm still working on describing a hatchery program that would be "acceptable" to WT, in answer to one of your earlier questions. Bear with me a littel longer.

But in the meantime, you go on doing other stuff that I can't leave unanswered.

First of all on the money thing. You keep trying to make it into something it isn't, but I'm beginning to think that you may sincerely misunderstand how it worked. You don't have to like it, but you ought to not like what actually happened.

WT did not recieve $50,000. I'm not sure what the actual total was off the top of my head, but I'm not sure it's anybody's business anyway. I hope you'll accept that it was significantly less, less than half I think. The reason is that at the time of the settlement we still owed our lawyers money. I don't know if you've ever noticed but they're kind of expensive. Ours works hard and he worked on these two cases for over a year. The $50,000 was actually significantly less than his total bill.

He refunded us the amount we had paid him so far. As I said before, that amount did not cover the other costs we had incurred internally working on the cases, mostly salaries, and some consulting fees to expert witnesses. So yes, the "monetary award" went in our bank account, but it did not represent any kind of "profit." Sueing the government is not some kind of cash cow. The whole thing cost many tens of thousands dollars more than we got back. We had less money in our "coffers" than we did when we started, but you can't even talk about WT having any coffers, really. Like most non-profits, WT leads a fairly hand-to-mouth existence. You can believe that or not.

To be honest, this is more than I'd like to be sharing, but I feel like I have to correct this misconception that you and some others seem to be laboring under. LIke I said, you ought to not like what actually happened, instead of just what you think happened.

And on your last post. Washington Trout has never actually called for the closing of all hatcheries state wide. I know how you'll respond to that, but I just wanted to remind everybody of that FACT. But more importantly, WT has never advocated, and never will, for closing hatcheries "and nothing else." We have never said, and never will, that closing hatcheries is some kind of magic bullet that will recover salmon all by itself.

What we have said, again and again, is that serious hatchery reform (which we believe will likely have to include closing many hatcheries), is a necessary component of a comprehensive salmon-recovery program, which must also include significantly reducing commercial, tribal, (and possibly sport) harvest, and major habitat preservation and recovery efforts.

As I have said here again and again, WT works equally hard on all three issues, because we believe, based on the preponderence of the current evidence, that no one approach will work without the other two.

Ramon Vanden Brulle
Washington Trout