Hello Aunty,

That'll be 1 hour detention for you young lady!

No, not trying to chide. I definitely should realize the futility of trying to keep discussion of these issues civil and fact-based.

I happen to know first-hand though that certain parties will not participate anymore in these "discussions" due to the general atmosphere of hostility and closed-mindedness. It is sad really, whether we agreed with them or not, so much could be understood about the intricacies and politics behind them if we could only conduct ourselves in an adult manner.

Class dismissed...

p.s. Thank you RA3 for responding. Grandpa, you want to know what WT or the RFA or any other organization really stand for? Do some research.

I think the toughest thing about this "issue" is that it's not one issue; it's several issues, and the solution to one is the problem for others, and vice versa.

Here's my somewhat informed opinion of the various groups mentioned so far...

1. Washington Trout: a wild fish advocate.

Creating recreational opportunity may or may not happen, depending on the scenario that their advocacy is playing out in. Examples...suing to close out of compliance hatcheries does not help recreational fishing (or tribal or commercial, for that matter). However, challenging WDFW/NMFS's harvest plans for Puget Sound and the Columbia River do, since they are almost entirely about commercial harvest and tribal ESA exploitation rates. Either way, recreational opportunity (or not) is a byproduct of wild fish advocacy, not a goal.

2. Wild Steelhead Coalition: Recreational fishermen who are wild fish advocates.

Not as cut and dry as some of the others. The point is to create recreatiohal opportunity, but the definition of "opportunity" may satisfy some and not others. Examples...mandatory release of wild steelhead, year round. That creates opportunity for those who choose not to harvest wild steelhead by leaving more in the river and more to spawn. For others, however, the inability to directly harvest a wild fish is a dimunition of opportunity. The WSC believes in well-run hatchery programs for tribal, commercial, and recreational fisheries, but is still in the process of creating a specific stance on balancing the recreational opportunity with the inherent damages caused by hatchery programs (greatly simplified for space reasons!).

3. RFA, TU, PSA: Also fish advocates, but leaning more towards opportunity than other groups. (Though there are specific differences between these groups, I lumped them together for purposes of this discussion because they seem more similar than dissimilar).

Examples: Energy is spent fighting for a bigger piece of the available harvest for recreational fishers. Economics of sportfishing vs. the political power of commercial fishing. Sometimes opportunity is sought at the expense of needed conservation (my opinion, to be sure).

4. Commercial fishers: $$$$$

Examples: Participating in a tangle tooth net fishery on the Columbia that catches three to four wild chinook and wild steelhead (ESA listed) for every harvestable hatchery chinook. Definitely not conservation minded. Participating in fisheries on the Columbia that have an ESA exploitation rate on listed sockeye of FIVE fish...and putting out miles of net to get them. I could go on here...

5. NMFS/WDFW/ODFW/USFWS: Managers.

Protocol seems to be fish like hell, overharvest is eventual, both commercial and recreational, then close fisheries and/or list stocks. Politically caught between the commercials and the recreational fishers (not to mention tribes), working with opposing mandates to provide economically sound commercial fisheries, quality recreational fisheries, and protection of all species, whether they be targeted or not. While caught in the middle between user groups, they're also being sued by groups like WT for violating the ESA and other mandatory environmental laws. Oh, yeah, less money each year to do it, especially the harder it gets to please all three user groups.

5. Tribal fisheries: $$$, treaty rights, co-managers.

The money is getting thinner and thinner, to the point that it makes almost no sense economically to do it. Problem is...some of the value of treaty rights is in the exercise of them themselves, not just in money. Tend to blame problems on habitat and hydropower, since those are the two H's that they don't screw up as much as the others do.

......

Those are just five of the representative user groups...and there are many more. With competing values and goals, and enough blame to go around that no one has to take any personal responsibility for their role in the decline of our fisheries, it's tough to get anything worthwhile done.

All those groups want more fish in the rivers, and all want it at the expense of at least one, if not all, of the other groups.

How do we sit down and make our common goal of more fish convert into our opposing goals of who gets the fish and when/where they get them?

Frankly, I don't see that happening, except perhaps through specific coalitions of some or all of those groups for specific projects, i.e., PSA and WT may spar over the hatchery suit, but are working together on the commercial harvest issues in Puget Sound. WSC, TU, WT, and others have all been gathering/sharing information about the Columbia debacles, and working together to clean them up. WDFW and TU, and with WT, do stream rehabilitation projects, sometimes funded with federal dollars.

I guess that's just the way it has to be...and I think that's OK, for the most part. "When we agree, then let's help each other out and sit on the same side of the table. When we don't, then we'll sit on opposite sides of the same table."

Don't make it/take it personally. Everyone has different goals, and yours aren't anymore important than anyone else's (except to you. Mine are to me, too )

The good thing about this arrangement is that nothing too extreme happens because there are too many hands in the pie for someone to grab it all.

The bad thing about this arrangement is that nothing extreme happens when it is needed because too many hands are in the pie.

Hmmm....sounds a lot like the political process in a democratic society, which I think is the lesser of many evils, though far from perfect.

Here's my overall dream for fisheries management:

Everyone with a stake is at the table...issues are dealt with specifically, not generally...everyone who is on the same side of an issue works together...everyone who is not agrees to disagree on this issue...no one takes anything personally, or attacks anyone personally...science is the prevailing tool in conservation issues...money and politics are the prevailing tools in allocation issues...money spent on lawsuits is better spent on research and field work...and while no one gets exactly what they want, everyone gets mostly what they want.

Pipe dream? Maybe. Impossible? No.

Join up in one of the above organizations, or one like them, and get involved. Heck, join several. I either have or do belong to many different groups, except for being a commercial fisherman or a tribal fisherman.

You know how cool it is to eat a tomato from your own garden, even if it cost ten times more to grow than one from the store? Or to catch a fish on a fly you tied, or spinner you made, yourself, even if you'd likely catch three on a pro's fly or lure?

You can really get that feeling when you catch a fish when you know you played a role in getting that fish in the river in front of you to catch.

Fish on...

Todd.

Todd,

As usual, you bring clarity and a rational perspective to these debates. Now if we could only bring ourselves to listen...

Ready to listen anytime 4Salt but also would like to hear some answers to our concerns and questions which we never got? BTW openmindedness and fairplay are a 2 way street wouldn't you agree? Lastly I recall the WT spokesman Ramon was last seen after he was rebuked for stepping over the line regarding personal info about a well respected member of this board who chose to challenge WTs statements and claims in a well thought out cogent discussion. But hey if they want to claim that hostility and closemindedness is their cause for not participating....well the shame is not on the side of the truth.

Todd as always that was very well stated.

Congratulations Todd for a very succinct presentation of your opinion. Good points. You are correct about PSA and WT working together on some things and working against each other on the hatchery issue. My questioning of issues was and is intended to start a good debate..which is happening here to some extent. I wish Mike from RFA would elaborate more on what he knows about WT as I have listened to him a few times recently learning more and more all the time.

AuntyM: I like you assessment of 4Salt....he is kind of like the hall monitor. Arms folded...allknowing smirk...as he blasts us for our opinions. I'm still waiting for his Todd-Like repsonse loaded with facts he MUST have right on the tip of his tongue.

4Salt: I ,too, know more than you think about fishing issues and politics. I do belong to fishing organizations and I have and do fight for what I believe in by getting involved in person..not just here in the peanut gallery. I love to fish and do not apologize for wanting to fish every chance I get. Take Mike's advise and click on the link to the Landsburg Mitigation by the City of Seattle. Try to read the whole thing then come back with pithy comments about the issues and try real hard not to blast those of us trying to debate and learn more. We are mere mortals trying to do our homework and learn from each other....don't toss us into detention study hall yet.

Grandpa,

I have kept pretty quiet on WT front for a while now because nobody will gain anything from what more I could say. I aired my displeasure with WT on hatchery issues in past threads. The simple truth is that we need tol be judging WT on thier actions, not thier words and not the words of others. If I learn of some substancial news I will pass it along.

That is a sound philosophy Mr. Gilchrist. It also happens to be the same one I employ regarding the Recreational Fishing Alliance.

Being from Oregon I found your recent stance on wild steelhead retention very telling.

Grandpa,

No arms folded sitting in judgement here. DEFINITELY NOT all-knowing. We went through this battle about 3 or 4 months ago over WT and their lawsuits on all 3 BB's. EVERYONE that participated, did so in a passionate manner. Some excellent insight and knowledge was exchanged as well, but just like every hot-button issue seems to do, it deteriorated into a series of personal attacks and general mayhem that IMHO negated most of the positive aspects of the "discussion".

I do not recall ever stating that you knew nothing about fisheries issues, and I wasn't blasting you for stating your opinion, just the manner in which it was presented. IMHO, if you wish to initiate good debate over these issues, starting out in an inflammatory manner is not the best way to accomplish this.

Wouldn't you agree that to truly understand an issue it is best to hear from all sides? It is much easier to form an educated opinion when all of the data is present. When these discussions degrade into name-calling b!tch fests, and the free exchange of ideas and opinions is quashed, one more time IMHO, it is the sportfishing community who is ultimately the loser.

I have always thought of WT as a fish conservation minded organization. Challenging hatchery programs can be consistent with fish conservation. However, it appears to me that WT has missed the mark in its challenge to Puget Sound chinook hatcheries.

Do PS hatchery chinook adversely affect wild, ESA listed chinook? In some cases, yes, of course. No affect is an almost impossible standard to achieve. Is any amount of adverse effect illegal under ESA? No, a limited adverse effect is permitted under the ESA.

I spoke with the biologist who wrote NMFS' opinion on the PS chinook hatchery and genetics management plan a few days ago. He said that comparing past hatchery practices to present and proposed practices under the approved plan is an apples and oranges type of comparison. Hatchery practices are being modified to REDUCE, NOT ELILMINATE, adverse effects on wild chinook. That is legal under the ESA. Eliminating all adverse effects might require closing so many of the hatchery operations that there would be NO commercial or recreational chinook fishing opportunity. Given the diverse interests, I think WDFW and NMFS are saying that would be an action of final resort to achieve recovery of the listed chinook. It's legitimate to ask why anyone would choose that alternative if it isn't necessary.

More importantly I think is that WT's lawsuit includes the "conservation" hatcheries. There are small hatchery operations that exist almost for the sole purpose of maintaining chinook populations that are at most risk of extinction. WT's suit is opposed to the Elwha channel program that prevents extinction of Elwha chinook and will provide the broodstock to restore that population when the dams are removed. WT's suit opposes the Whitehorse program that maintains the fragile NF Stillaguamish chinook and provides marked fish for a valuable stock indicator project. Anyone who knows the Stilly is aware that there isn't enough remaining stable chinook spawning gravel to maintain the population in the near term. This program is necessary to restore and recover the chinook run in the future. WT's suit also opposes the White River spring chinook hatchery, without which, the recover of White River chinook is impossible.

I agree that most PS chinook hatchery production occurs for the sole purpose of providing commercial, treaty, and recreational fishing opportunity. To the extent that those operations really do get in the way of survival and recovery of wild chinook, the hatchery practices do need to be modified, reduced, or perhaps closed down in some cases. But to seek the closure of conservation hatcheries that are essential to the recovery of some very unique PS chinook stocks is irresponsible, and misguided, conservation in my opinion.

The state's fisheries, and WT, would be better served by having WT oppose WDFW's slot limits on Columbia River walleye. The regulation is designed to produce more and larger walleye broodstock. Walleye are an exotic species imported from the mid-west. Walleye are known to be an effective predator on salmon and steelhead smolts. Seems like a lawsuit to extend the northern pikeminnow bounty to include walleye, and the elimination of protective regulations for walleye would be a more effective and dedicated conservation action.

WT is like most conservation organizations. Like Audibon, Sierra Club, or Wilderness Society. Their hearts are in the right place. I might agree with many of their positions and actions, but I disagree when they get it wrong. It does look to me as though WT missed the mark with their total opposition to PS chinook hatchery operations.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

POS,

You're right, of course. You don't begin negotiation with your bottom line.

If I was unclear, let me add that I'm certain politics and science are different. Oh, are they ever different! Interestingly, tho, they are both amoral. While the methods are different, I think the most impressive difference is that politics has no allegiance nor truth, only interests. Science uses systematic methods to seek truth.

I do have a perspective that is probably different than most anglers. Conservation organizations serve an important role in our system of checks and balances. While trying to keep my eye on the larger prize of fishery conservation, I'm frustrated when I see WT or other organizations tying up a lot of resources in efforts that may do little to effect the outcome of recovery, all the while ignoring other or larger actions that have a more significant influence on eventual outcomes.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
- -- Joseph Joubert

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who
dares not, is a slave.
-- Sir William Drummond

I 'm with SlabQuest on the purpose of a discussion. I'm not sure if POS Clerk is saying he is an idiot, a bigot or whatever...or is he talking about others who disagree with his point of view? Not sure...I am sure that discussions can lead to progress...thanks for the quote SlabQuest.

Support the Cedar River Hatchery!!!

Well, I certainly was NOT intending for that quote to spawn a new round of name-calling

SlabQuest

Do you believe that the quote in question was somehow directed at you?

Why?

Do you fail to reason?


Just fun-in wit cha slab

It's tough to say anything here without starting a name calling spree..Even when poking fun I get caught up in the jabs back and forth..what I really want to do is extract some information..not to call names or poke fun in a maliscious way...So with that said I think Slab is too sensitive...

oops..didn't mean to copy the whole thing....just the part about walleye and exotic species....it has always made me scatch my head why so little attention (it seems) is paid to walleye or even bass predation on smolts.....why should we be encouraging bass or walleye to do better where they can chomp on smolts?

POS, no, I thought the quote you posted was appropriate and not derogatory to anyone.