Sinktip,
"Respected environmental organization"
Geez dont make me puke. This is a group of fish Nazi's willing to kill millions of fish to maybe save afew.

Gee, I wonder what the response here would have been if WT had to sue WDFW to restrict commercial netting?

Somehow I doubt there'd be howls about that 'extreme' tactic taking up the agency's time and money. If fact, I think there'd be a whole lotta 'attaboys' and no nonsensical deliberating over whether the organization is about fish, fishing or the environment.

Good job JJ and Silver Hilton for trying to add a rational perspective.

Talk about distraction! Bashing organizations that you're in agreement with, probably 90% of the time, and then trying to punish the companies that comprise the sportfishing industry, all the while letting the dam operators, etc. off the hook for the very real damage they do everyday is logic I cannot follow.

Boycott Amato, Loomis, etc. NO WAY!

I have to say that these are some pretty strong words, but I would have to agree. I like what WT dose when it comes to repairing creeks and the area around them. What I don't like is the fact that they whant to get rid of all our hatcheries. With out these hatcheries there would be no salmon, steelhead or even the planter trout to fish for. WT needs to stop the law suits and focus on the streams. Stopping the law suits will also save money for WDFW.

Jay

Gee, wouldnt that be great? But you know what...THEYRE NOT! Thats what I asked in one of the first few threads on this subject and never got a response. The way I see it they are barkin up the wrong tree, but then again, from what Ive read, these guys (WT) dont give a damn about the anglers, Ive yet to see them state otherwise.
Besides the commercial netters catch hatchery fish too, so they are probably "good guys" in WT's eyes (to a certain extent).
Its (commercials/tribes netting) definately a much bigger problem than the SUPPOSED kill of native stocks by hatchery smolts.

RL

Ramon

The fact that you have no respect for me is fine with me. I am in good company with a horde of people who have no respect for you and they actually know you and have dealt with you for much longer than I. But I don't know you and I understand the volatile nature of this bulletin board and I know I contribute to that volatility. How can I honestly villify you under those circumstances? I can poke fun and incite your dark side but I can't disrespect you or hate you. I do have some interesting email correspondence about you that I will not share out of respect for the good people who sent it to me. Let's just say that you are not as right and squeaky clean as you would like us to think.

If my tactics piss you off then maybe you can empathize with how the tactics of WT piss others off and move them to comment so much. Your 30% following chimes in with support and they make some convincing arguments as do the 70% who oppose WT. At the end of the day that is what it is all about.

I only hope that WT does not try to take credit for the hatchery reform already underway by claiming that the only reason it happened was your penchant for lawsuits. There are many individuals and groups working hard within the broken system to make it better out of the court room. I know time will tell who was on the right side of this issue.

Ramon

I almost forgot to adderess the "secret" nature of your negotiations with WDFW. What are you so afraid of? I imagine that the transcripts and written records of what is taking place will be kept confidential so we will have to hear your version of what really happened. I hope not. Secrecy has nothing to do with ethics unless you all signed a gag order. If you did you would be totally silent until the lawsuit is settled. Just as you leak little inuendoes others can do the same. It will be interesting if in the end the settlement is undisclosed. oooooooooo the mystery of it all.

Settlement negotiations are always confidential, to protect the interests of both parties, and to keep any taliking "out of school" from queering any potential deal. I couldn't give you any details if I wanted to, without getting in hot water with WDFW. I don't anticipate that any facet of a finished deal will be confidential, but these negotiations are, by the terms of both WT and WDFW. I've never heard of any settlement negotiations being carried out differently. (Maybe Todd can help here?)

When and if a deal is finalized, I'll be free and happy to disclose any details that WDFW allows me to.

I don't know what you mean by innuendo. I've never said anything here or anywhere else about this issue that I don't know or believe to be true. If you can't understand my points or disagree with them, that does not mean I've attempted to distort or hide anything.

Ramon Vanden Brulle
Washington Trout

Ramon...
I have been sitting on the fence watching this argument, and i do think WT has done great things.
And as of this thread I have seen you put words in peoples mouths to justify your stance. Grandpa never said the things that you accuse him of in the context that you mention. At this point I have to wonder what the motivation would be for you to twist the conversation as such...
I think it may have been touched on when someone said "any publicity is good publicity"
You are very good at stirring the pot Ramon, I do dearly hope that whoever shows up at your auction to protest can effectively state their feelings about what you are doing with this suit.

SilverHilton...Don't you think that WT should have done a little more to work with the system instead of against it? I don't have a clue about any hidden agenda but this tactic of suing and settling is a classic fund raising effort. Granted the system may be broken but shouldn't it be fixed instead of eliminated?

All that said if WT's goal is to effect change by hitting WDFW where it hurts, and they have a plan that has the best intrest of the fish at heart then I could understand. Agree? Probaly not. Different strokes for different folks. But to see first hand how the pot is being stirred....I trust Ramon about as far as I can spit a rat. And I will be the first to say that my opinion of him is based solely on what I have seen here on this board. My answer to that? If someone will misqoute the truth to me about something I know about, what are they telling me about that of wich I know very little...

This is not a complex issue. WT has threatened suit, and then pursued that strategy, to attempt to force the department to substantially modify its practices. They are threatening all of us with closure of many hatcheries, thereby bludgeoning through lawsuit as a means of negotiation. That stinks. I hope that the state tells them to go pee up a rope.

Actually, it is a complex issue. Which people of small minds have either not been able to grasp or have chosen to ignore. Hatcheries do not always work as run mitigation strategies. If you have only half a brain and fished steelhead this past winter season, it should not be hard to understand that they sometimes don't work at all well.

WT is a group of people that is oriented around the belief, which I find sensible, that wild fish populations, in healthy river systems, are a good thing. From my knothole. wild fish don't cost money, are resistant to the upturns and downturns in the ecosystem, and are generally a nice thing to have around. But, maybe you'd rather catch tiny fish that don't fight...

The state of washington has neglected wild runs for 50 plus years and has tried to make hatcheries work as a mitigation strategy. Well, guess what? It hasn't worked. It hasn't kept us fishing, and it hasn't reduced pressure on wild fish, as promised. WT is simply suing to make the state keep it's promises. If this were social security, you'd be singing thier praises. Instead, you're ignorant and not too bright, and are trying to crucify a group that is trying to protect our fisheries.

I shudder at the implications of the ignorant intersecting the internet.

Aunty- I would not call this a letter by PSA that you linked above-

"My response to you, and Washington Trout, tonight is as an individual. I am not speaking on behalf of either the North Olympic Peninsula Chapter of PSA nor the PSA State Board and its affiliated chapters."

Also is your and Grandpas boycott sponsored by PSA? If not, I would be careful as members throwing the PSA name around. As an observation the PSA association in your posts could be taken as an endorsement.

Duroboat15, Talk about "throwing up", what makes me sick is all this energy directed at WT and that there were only 70 responses to the Olympic National Park major fishing rules proposal.

I guess I have to agree that I am not too bright and may indeed be downright ignorant.

I have, however, supported fundraising for many conservation organizations, including spending over 20 years on the DU committee here in Vancouver. But the conservation organizations that I support don't use the banquet donation proceeds to sue the state agencies responsible for trying to improve our wildlife.

There may be many areas where improvements can be made in hatchery operations, and those improvements should be made as quickly and responsibly as possible. But suing to close the hatcheries of an entire region is either a temper tantrum or a new and creative way to raise money. In either case, it needs to stop.

A proper and respectful demonstration by concerned sportsmen at WT fundraisers would be very effective in forcing the attendees to really see where their money is going.

Silverhilton
"hactheries don't work as mitigation strategies"?
The first thing that comes to mind is habitat. When I worked at Cowlitz the #1 thing we fought on a daily basis was water temp. That is a habitat issue!
Sure the hatchery system has not had stellar success as a mitigation strategy, but is it entirely the fault of the hatchery system? Or is it GENERALY making the best of a bad situation? I do firmly believe that WDFW has not done an even passable job and way to many directors and other management types have worried more about their next appointment than the issues at hand.
And I would even agree that a major houscleaning is in order. However the bulk of the bio's and fish culturists that work in the system are trying to do the best they can with what they have, and beat their heads against the wall on a daily basis. This suit to me seems to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater! I have not seen data to back up the WT theory and basis for this action and I have seen considerable data refuting it.
the entire crux of your argument lies in the fact that we do not have healthy river systems, along with myriad other problems. I can't see how shutting down hatcheries can help. I do understand how launching this suit and settling can accomplish goals for WT, some of wich I may agree with, but in this context I see it as counterproductive to the issue at hand. It might even be said that you(WT) are trying to crucify a group that has the best interest of the fish at hand...

silver hilton....remember that old saying about glass houses..you should if you are as intelligent and superior to others as you seem to think.

The debate about WT's lawsuit is just that..it's about the lawsuit. If we oppose WT's lawsuit tactics we do not automatically endorse hatchery practices or condone the mismanagement of them. Check in with some of the tribes on the Columbia as far as your mitigation theories are concerned. And also look into the amount of money spent on wild fish. I think you will find the numbers mind boggling.

The hatchery/wild fish issue is indeed complex. It is the opposition to the lawsuit that is simple.

AuntyM and Ramon

I think Dave Croonquist's letter needs to be out in the open because it is a concise response to why he, as an individual, cannot support WT on the lawsuit issue. I think it is also important to know that the Puget Sound Anglers board of directors has agreed as a group in a unanimous vote representing some 3,000 members that we cannot support WT on this lawsuit issue. That certainly doesn't mean that we don't have members who disagree it only means we haven't heard from any of them if they do.

Here is Dave's response to Ramon:
----------------------------

Listed below is one of the Puget Sound Anglers response to the above letter


Ramon,

Thank you for your response. I am relatively new to the Puget Sound Anglers (PSA) and have been back in the Pacific Northwest for a couple of years since I retired. I am generally familiar with the issues revolving around salmon recovery and know that it has been and will continue to be an interesting and challenging process.

Your communication has been passed along to the PSA Board. Our next Board meeting is scheduled for October so any information that needs to be passed along to the PSA chapters concerning the Washington Trout Notice of Intent to Sue will be moot by then.

My response to you, and Washington Trout, tonight is as an individual. I am not speaking on behalf of either the North Olympic Peninsula Chapter of PSA nor the PSA State Board and its affiliated chapters.

I have reviewed the WT Notice of Intent to Sue. While I do not deny that there are issues with hatchery vs. "wild/native/locally adapted" salmonid stocks, your Notice of Intent to Sue is, in my opinion, very disturbing in its structure and if it should end up going to court - win or lose, has the potential to sound the death knell for all private, state, federal, or tribal hatchery programs. This is one issue where I cannot, do not, and will not agree with Washington Trout.

As a species, mankind has done an excellent job of manipulating ecosystems and damaging or destroying many other species. As far as hatchery production is concerned you can look at any other state or country and see the results of mankind trying to manipulate fisheries stocks "for the better". Carp, German Brown Trout, Stripers, Shad, Tench, Walleye, the list goes on and on. The releases were done because someone or some group or some agency thought that local fishing could use a shot in the arm by introducing a new or hybridized species. The WDFW does not stand alone in making mistakes with fish production and to single them out in this Notice appears to be self-serving. There are 38 other state, federal, tribal, and private hatcheries whose production is also impacting listed species, yet they are not listed in your Notice.

You argue that WDFW is not meeting NMFS guidelines in a timely manner, yet your organization is also challenging NMFS on some of its actions. It appears to me that your organization is working on fringe issues rather than coming to the table and working together with the necessary/appropriate agencies and non-governmental organizations to address the issue of habitat loss, ocean conditions, high seas harvest, and related issues that must be corrected before we can even begin to consider the modifications of hatchery
production.

Additionally, your Notice comes at a time when WDFW is in the middle of the Hatchery Scientific Review Group (HSRG) investigation into how the WDFW and the other tribal and federal agencies can adapt existing programs to help recover wild salmon and to continue the very important facet of providing for a sustainable fisheries. The HSRG recognizes the potential threats to ESA listed species and is already working with the appropriate state, tribal, and federal managers to see that the various programs be operated to minimize the risks to endangered fish. WTs stated purpose, in your press release, of shutting down all state-run Chinook hatcheries, would have far-reaching consequences, not only on any recovery projects, but also on local economies and would also curtail license purchases, thus impacting the WDFW budgeting. I would hope that WT would come to the table with the HSRG
to provide its perspective on the issues rather than trying to drive a wedge into the process and diverting WDFW personnel and money to defending itself against your Notice.

I appreciate your taking the time to listen to some of my concerns. I expect that there will be issues in the future where I can support your objectives. This isn't one of them.

Sincerely,

Dave Croonquist

Grandpa, could you please steer clear of the use of open ended character slurs (i.e.: emails about Ramone's character you can't share), that's a very unfair way to debate an issue. During the many threads about this subject you have used many different forms of innuendo to make your points .

At least Silver Hilton doesn't employ innuendo ...

Usage: An innuendo is an equivocal allusion so framed as to point distinctly at something which is injurious to the character or reputation of the person referred to. An insinuation turns on no such double use of language, but consists in artfully winding into the mind imputations of an injurious nature without making any direct charge

JG: You are correct about the "secret" emails and so I will find them and print them or I will not insinuate anything about them. I'm not sure about the innuendo. Maybe you can site examples so I can refrain from them in the future. Usually these things result from responding to the same tactic by the other poster....all just opinions in my opinion>>>

Grandpa, I consider this sentence by you about me in another thread an insinuation---------------You seem to be trying to simplify this issue as if those opposed to the WT lawsuit only care about being able to harvest more fish in total disregard for the resource. That just isn't the case.--------

I dont know much about WT but issaquah is a good place for the meeting. I caught my first steelhead on the issaquah creek in 7th grade. they are now extinct on the issaquah creek. there are millions of hatchery salmon that you cant fish the closed waters for though. when will the WDFW return the steelhead run to the Issaquah creek? they owe it to all of us! where are the bear creek steelhead? If many of you folks lived around here where there are not much fish left (except on the skycowlitz) then you would understand the position of some of these froups a little more. Everyone knows that the WDFW is managing our fish right into extinction. hatchery fisheries are a great resource and make alot of money and good times. but the hatchery fish should never ever ever be used to bolster fish populations in order to justify the harvest of both wild and hatchery fish. hatchery fish should make a great addition to a strong fishery (desert) but not be mistaken for the staple of the fishery (meat and potatoes)

WDFW's response of "well we'll just throw all the fish in the lakes then" is like the states response to tim eyemans when they say that all the police departments will be closed down because of $30 tabs. it is just scare tactics meant to create infighting among the groups that should be in coordination together.

Instead of a protest- maybe we could all go over to the sunset street brewery afterwards for an open dialoge between the groups and I bet everyone will learn somethin from the other side... Ill even buy the first round of beers...

Although I just love the thought of Aunty Em as a protestor.. dont forget to wear patchuli oil and bring drums and creative signs