Take out all the fluff and Ramon's "case" is obviously anti-hatchery. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, flies like a duck and quacks like a duck it is probably a duck. Washington Trout is against hatcheries and all the bogus ramblings from Ramon will never change that. A good trial lawyer or carpet bagger can make a convincing case for the defendant and then turn right around and make just as convincing a case for the plaintiff.

I am going to look into the new study no one seems to be picking up on which will show with supportable science that a balance of hatchery and wild fish is far more effective than a no hatchery plan or a plan with too many hatchery fish. I talked to someone who is very well known and respected recently and his opinion is that Puget Sound Chinook would not last 2 years with a zero hatchery model.

I might be more sympathetic and attentive to Washington Trout's public statements made by Ramon VB if their obvious end game wasn't always trying to prove that hatcheries are bad and unworkable. Witness the instant argument when any successful program is cited by a very credible source. After all, we are on the cusp of significant reforms which need a chance to perform. I think that is what has revived Washington Trout again. The ominous reality that hatchery reform programs might just work to significantly help wild fish while still providing sports , commercial and tribal fisheries. The reforms are going to take place and I hope to see the day they work and Ramon's rhetoric is on the trash heap where it belongs.

I am , by the way, also concerned about the motives of the NOAA proposals and the Bonneville arguments. We'll see what develops there as a bunch of good folks are standing guard to prevent abuses.