Hey Washington Trout Where Were You?

There was a hearing yesterday in Olympia that would reform Intiative I-713
Remeber your endorsement of this?

All your other animal rights organizations were there with very weak testimony, would have loved to of seen you there with some weak argument!

Have you changed your minds and now endorse the reform bill SSB 5179?

Would love to know!

I see alot of anti-washington trout on this board. can someone fill me in on what the issue is with this group? i have read some stuff on their web page mainly dealing with the tokul creek hatchery(got a winter run return of 100 fish this season) and taking down the wiers that are blocking the wild salmon returns to the creek. I have not had a chance to learn more about this group other than that and seeing their store in duvall. I did like their position on tokul creek but I would like to learn more about the group and what other issues they are involved in . I believe in putting wild fish before hatchery fish but i am not sure if that is even the issue here. please inform. thanks

Chappy, this topic was just covered on Washingtonflyfishing.com. http://www.washingtonflyfishing.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=22398

Pretty good info provided, plus I must say I made some masterful posts myself. Well, that's rather usual for me.

good job CWU Girl. Read some of the posts over there, though that forum is kinda goofy and hard to follow.

The point is Washington Trout endorses the HSUS and their emotional non scientific approach to managing our fish and wildlife through the intiative process.
Oh did I forget to mention they endorsed illegal campaign that the HSUS forced down the un-informed throats.

Just wondering if Washington Trout has changed their tune, or if they still endorse the illegal activities of their partner?

patiently waiting!

Before you go accusing me of making allegations of illegal activity..

here is the report...

====================
PDC fines trapping initiative backers
By PAUL QUEARY
The Associated Press
1/28/03 5:33 PM


OLYMPIA (AP) -- The state's campaign finance watchdog fined the backers of Washington's voter approved animal-trapping ban Tuesday for illegally concealing massive purchases of television advertising time.

The case against Protect Our Pets and Wildlife -- which stems from the 2000 election season -- has been pending for more than a year. Last winter, the Public Disclosure Commission referred the case to Attorney General Christine Gregoire because the panel's authority to impose fines was too limited to punish the violation.

But Gregoire's office sent the case back because Protect our Pets and Wildlife -- the campaign committee for Initiative 713 -- was broke. On Tuesday, the commission fined the group $2,500, the maximum allowed under law. If Gregoire had pursued the case, she could have sought fines of as much as $10,000 per violation.

"The record clearly indicated ... that there were repeated violations," Commission Chairman Michael Connelly said.

Shawn Newman, an attorney for Protect Our Pets and Wildlife, promised an immediate appeal.

"It really boils down to an issue of free speech," said Newman, who contends that PDC investigators essentially made up the rule in question after the fact.

State law requires regular disclosure of campaign spending, in part to give election opponents and others some insight into campaign strategy. For example, big spending on television time indicates an impending advertising blitz, and learning of such a push can give opponents time to respond.

Near the end of the 2000 campaign, Protect Our Pets and Wildlife reported a single $535,205 expenditure for television time in its Oct. 26 report to the commission.

The commission's staff contends the purchase -- actually multiple orders placed over several weeks by a consultant -- should have been reported in detail on Oct 17. The time was ordered as early as Aug. 31, although the ads ran in the crucial final stage of the campaign -- late October and early November.

Campaign officials contend there was no obligation to pay the stations until a few days before the commercials aired.

Ed Owens, who led the opposition to I-713, brought the original complaint against Protect Our Pets and Wildlife after discovering orders for advertising time in TV station records that hadn't been disclosed to the PDC.

Owens also doubts the notion that the political action committee is really broke. Protect Our Pets and Wildlife drew much of its money from the Humane Society of the United States.

"If HSUS can afford to channel nearly $300,000 worth of resources of the state to finance this initiative, they can certainly afford to pay the obligations of their PAC," said Owens. "Unfortunately the law can only get to the PAC itself."

The society's northwest regional director, Lisa Wathne, is currently battling Owens' push to overturn I-713.

I-713 bans the use of body-gripping traps to capture any mammal for recreation or commerce in fur, along with two specific poisons. Initiative sponsors, primarily the Humane Society of the United States, argued that such methods are cruel and inhumane. The initiative passed with nearly 50 percent of the vote.

Opponents of the initiative, including trappers, farmers, ranchers, timber owners, say damage from wildlife has skyrocketed since I-713 passed.

From what I have gatherd, it seams that WA Trout has a hidden agenda to stop all hatcheries and sport fishing. Every thing they do is aimed at either one of these things.

Jay

People have to wake up and realize that the animal rights groups like PETA and WASHINGTON TROUT are RADICALS and have extreme agendas. The extremists and radicals are trying to fool you into thinking they are supporting a just cause and you don't wake up until it hurts you or your way of life. If you fish ,and I assume most on here do, these group want to STOP YOU!!!