Tug, disagreement is fine when it comes to opinions, but do we disagree on facts? This reminds me of how complex civil legal cases are laid out. Two lists are made: Facts in Agreement, and Facts in Dispute. Then the parties bring evidence supporting why their version of the facts in dispute is correct. Then the judge and his or her advisors get to wade through the evidence and decide what version of the facts in dispute is legally correct.

I don't want to write a book here, but I think there is a lot of evidence suggesting that WDFW's science has improved over time. That's consistent with the nature of science; it tests that which isn't understood to bring improved understanding to technical issues. Hatchery fish health has improved as a direct result of bringing knowledge gained through science to better methods, diets, and policies that increase fish survival in hatchery environments. Is there something to disagree with here?

You allege regarding wild fish that ". . . there really aren't any." Scientific evidence says that is wrong. First through electrophoresis and then with DNA for the last couple decades or so, we are able to identify the genetic make up of fish populations. And while a lot of native wild populations have disappeared, more than one might expect do continue to exist. They continue to exist because for whatever reasons, they weren't harvested to extinction - like many were - and because some of them spawned in places and at times that separated them from hatchery fish. What, specifically, supports your contention ". . . that there really aren't any?" I don't see how it can be scientific evidence. I've heard that there are people who are "science deniers," who don't believe in science, as if science needs to be believed in. Are you one of those?

Do you disagree with me about having hatchery fish spawn with wild fish? Again, evidence says that is not good for the wild fish. It may or may not affect the hatchery fish, but that is another story. I'm trying to understand what you disagree with.

You refer to "failed salmon management," and I agree that is a good description of management. Part of that problem, IMO, is the legislative requirement that WDFW promote and manage for commercial salmon fishing, and WDFW takes that to mean NT commercial salmon fishing. IMO, the legislative requirement or its interpretation needs to be changed. It is impossible to supply two commercial salmon fishing fleets (T & NT) with a significantly declining resource, but WDFW just keeps trucking along and at this rate will one day find that they have one salmon management biologist for each harvestable salmon. Crazy, ain't it?

Even 30 and more years ago, over half the salmon harvest in WA state consisted of Fraser River sockeye. That's right! Harvest of WA salmon had fallen so low that most of the in state catch consisted of Canadian salmon. That should have been a major wake up call. I think NT commercial salmon fishing should be ended. It is no longer a productive industry; it costs more in resource harm and management costs than it is worth to the state's economy. On average, the treaty fishery is large enough to harvest most surplus salmon, when there are any. And the number of "surplus" salmon is a legitimate topic for debate. More fish on the spawning grounds is environmentally beneficial.

I'm not going to argue about the quality of the upper Skokomish as salmon habitat. I think we both agree that we should allow fish to make whatever use of it that they can.