Jerry now you are seeing the bigger picture you better watch out.

Elkrun. WT waited for over two years on the issue before they went to court. WDFW was in breach of the law, how do you suggest you get the WDFW to comply?

This is a win for wild fish. Neither side got exactly what they wanted 100%, that is called compromise. If you can't see that then our wild fish have no hope.

JJ

4Salt

What is your ongoing problem?


Where in the devil to you come up with, or draw your whacko concluding from?

How in the world did you come up with or twist it to me saying that there was a "conspiracy here" in one of my recently posted threads? Do you not understand the definition or difference between the word "Hypocrisy" and "conspiracy"?

Don't you ever post anything other then criticism of others? How about writing something sometime that can tell us all about a new fishing trick or something like catching fish instead of how to pi$$ other people off.

When was the last time that you posted something that wasn't trying to nock somebody else down? Is that all you know how to do?

Or do you just do it the best?

You must really think that your stuff doesn't stink!

When are you going to let people say their opinion without trying to put everyone who disagree with yours down? Oh, don't forget to use your "conspiracy" argument here to!

Cowlitzfisherman

I believe this also means that sporties, who have different interests than WT on this issue, MUST weigh in and comment when public comments are requested. If not, than WT will present its view using their expertise and means, and if not responded too, their view will become the accepted positiion. This may be why WDFW didn't want all of this put out to the public. As mentioned in previous posts, sporties tend to piss and moan more than jump into the process to effect change.

When such hatchery plans go out to public review and comment, sporties will have to present a coherent position and back it up with signatures or bodies to counter any disagreeable position offered by WT.

On the one hand, WT's actions may allow a larger pool of referees when making hatchery decisions or hatchery reform policies. But on the other hand, they've created a public forum of the issue, one that they have the time, expertise, and comfort level to operate within. And they have provided us no choice but to jump in and play.

Elk,

I didn't call you any names. You responded STRONGLY to my first post, so I just returned the favor.

You've got it all wrong. I don't mind people disagreeing with me at all, in fact I welcome it.

My issue here is that even though the settlement looks like a win-win for ALL sides, some people just want to continue the bashing.

Cowlitz - Huh? If you're talking about the Hypocracy thread, why didn't you post your response there? You stated an opinion, so did I. I CAN disagree with you, just like you can me. The day you figure that out, you'll be A LOT better off!

JJ-
My point is that the issue isn't solved. All that has been done is allow another avenue for more lawsuits as I explained in my first post. I understand the concept of compromise. It is my opinion, all that was compromised was 58K. The WDFW cannot please all interest groups. I realize they are not a perfect organization by any means, but I have had the sense that they are trying to make positive changes and listen to more input from the public as it is. They are not an instant gratification type system. Changes take time. We want wild fish back now, but that wont happen. I spoke with a biologist last week after he spoke at a meeting I attended. We discussed this very topic. They have lots of great changes in mind, there are some great idealists working there. The problem is funding for these changes. SO, back to my point.... would WT like to really see some changes or is that just a platform for fundraising? Earmark that money for some specific changes that both sides agree need to be done, and give it back. Come on, as was pointed out earlier by an unnamed responder... 58K is mountain money

If thats how you see it.... I responded strongly, you made it personal.... again (the predictablilty piece). You just dont seem all that "welcoming" to me.

58k was their legal cost. They didn't make anything by settling, they just paid their lawyers fees. That mountain of money won't go towards anything other than legal costs WT has already incured. The WDFW agreed they were in the wrong, so they had to pay the complaintant's legal fees. Its pretty standard.

J.J. Just because I see the big picture doesn't mean I agree with all I see.
Elkrun the $58,000 was divided between WT and the Native Fish Society, and approved by the court and WDFW.

Darn typing mistakes.... I meant to type "Mountain Money" . It was supposed to be a cute reference to the toilet paper analogy typed earlier... mountain money as in TP. Obviously it would have been much funnier had it been typed correctly.



JG- I'm still not convinced this is over. Only time will tell. Sometimes court cases are settled not because of someone being at fault, but it's easier/cheaper to settle than spending for defense of a lawsuit. Especially, when its other peoples money you settle with.

OK folks,

Here's how it usually works and is probably where the "money" is going to go! This is by my own personal experience. Usually, groups such as WT have attorneys who represent their client's on a Pro-bono basic. Simply stated, that means that the attorneys only get paid for their "out-of-pocket" expenses i.e. travel, phone, fax, mailing and filling fees.

But, and it's a really BIG BUTT, almost always the deal is agreed to before hand that if the pro-bono attorney wins his/their case, "they" can collect "reasonable attorney fees" ($200+ an hour). Most attorneys keep daily phone logs and every second of that "time" that he/they "discusses" any issue of the case (might even include a fishing-viewing type of trip on one or more of the rivers involved), he will be keeping his log a running! Lets see; 8 hrs @ $200 looking over river with so and so to discuss what to do= $1600.00 + milage= $120+ meals =another $75.00 +phone calls concerning river tour another 3 hrs= $600.00 more. And when you have two "attorneys" on same trip doing it, the cost of that expositional fishing trip could easily be well over $4780.00!

I know, because I work with an attorney and get to review his billings. Even if the attorney who is doing the pro-bono work doesn't get a single penny from his "clients" that he is representing, the attorney still gets the full "tax write off" for doing his pro-bono work (anyway, that is my understanding).

So the simple fact is; if you want to take on the WDFW, make sure that your attorney is a fisherman who is willing to do it on a pro-bono basis! If you guys think that for one minute WT paid weekly or monthly payments to their attorney, then I got some real great "ocean view" property in Arizona to sell to you.

That's the Game, and that's how it is played!!


Cowlitzfisherman

If groups such as R.F.A., P.S.A.,T.U., W.S.C., F.F.F. can use science[not "I want"] to make their points within the new hatchery review process the impact could be incredible!!

Jerry,

You my friend are a genius! That's EXACTLY what should happen, and now we have the legally mandated forum to do it!

4Salt

Enough is enough!
Kissy, kissy, kissy, kissy!!!

After awhile, is kind of sickening!


Cowlitzfisherman

You all may be right about another forum for public opinion being a good thing, but I'm not convinced.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the WT lawyers will use this to their advantage to sue the state on other issues or at the very least push their anti-hatchery agenda.

I think this is part of WTs consistent legal strategy to keep a high profile. Notice the PI articles and press releases. They can trumpet from the montaintops that this is another victory for fish, but in reality this is just another $58,000 to employ some lawyers and a bunch of good press for WT to go and seek more grant money.

Nothing has really been done to help the fish. The key to salmon recovery is habitat issues.

Why doesn't WT sue bonneville over dam operation or maybe sue developers or foresters over habitat degradation?


If WT really cares about the fish, they should spend more time working on habitat issues and less suing the state or spouting off to reporters. Even if it means less publicity for WT or less money for their lawyers.

Cowlitz Fisherman,,

BINGO! on both comments,, maybe some of that TP could be used to wipe some brown stuff off of ones nose!

It sure would be fun to review WT legal fee's huh?

Cowlitz,

You tryin' to start another "dull" with me.

Didn't yer momma teach you nothin'. The only thing sickening here is your pathetic attempt to appear remotely intelligent!

How old did you say you were? It used to be said that with age comes wisdom. In your case, that is one virtue that has completely escaped you!

Na Na Na Na Na Na! :p :p

Driftboater - And we were getting along SO well! You and Cowlitz must be long lost cousins!

p.s. sorry mods, this time I just couldn't help myself.

4Salt

You have put your own "nails" into your own coffin!

Your reply only needs to be answered to show one issue, and one issue only! Whenever another man starts talking a bout another man's mother in the way that you have done, it is a non reversible down hill slope for him to climb from that point on for that person.

Well that is an older man opinion!

Cowlitzfisherman

I think judgement of the WT/WDFW settlement needs to be reserved until much more factual information comes out from those involved. Right now we have Ramon's press release which is appreciated and to the point and some initial superficial news reports . Hopefully we will be able to see the other view point from those involved in the actual hatchery review and reform process. Then we can adequately assess the merits of the lawsuit and the $58,000 in legal costs levied against WDFW.

Public comment has always been part of the process. The trouble has been that public comment from sports fishermen has been lacking and sometimes rare. Not so this year. RFA and PSA, to name only two, have been at the table big time and will continue to be for good ,solid , constructive progress in the promotion of sports fishing in our state. The impact for change has been realized by that involvement in recent times. Good things are happening to improve the conditions for our wild fish without lawsuits. I'm sure the groups that have been working hard to present recommendations for hatchery reform will weigh in on the impact of the WT lawsuit in good time. I strongly feel that progress was already being made without the lawsuit and that it will continue to be made before, during and after the next lawsuit.

I think those who call this a "win-win" deal may not be totally wrong but if you believe, as I do, that the ends do not necessarily justify the means you may want to look at this a lot more carefully before jumping for joy just yet.

The debate is not over and is, in fact, just getting started. I am hoping that WT does not take too much credit for impending hatchery reform. I hope WT does not gloat that they made all of this reform possible. So many well meaning people have been working hard, even if admittedly slow, to see positive changes come to pass.

One positive change that came of this lawsuit is that a ton of people have the micrscope focused on Washington Trout. We should all watch what they do and not just what they say.

Very good post grandpa!!

Cowlitzfisherman