Double Haul -
You must have like the information that Bill McMillian had presented to WSC as you have used it several times. If you wish to continue to do so you may wish to use correct information. The 26 million $$ figure in 1990 was likely the entire hatchery budget (steelhead represent a small portion of the production) for the then Department of Wildlife. In the year 2000 WDFW's entire hatchery budget (for all species) was 56 million $$. This is the combined budget for the two old agencies (Wildlife and Fisheries) which were historically were more or less equal in size.

In 1990 the Department Wildlife's total steelhead smolt plant was about 8.5 million - 3,728,800 winters and 4,818,400 summers. The likely cost for such produstion would have been less than 4 million.

In addition more than 35% of the winter production and 60% of the summer production was for the Columbia system. That production is mitigation for impacts from various dams. That habitat is not likely to restored in our lifetimes. We as a society decided to trade our wild fish so that we would have water to grow potatoes in the desert for our french fries, cheap power so we can make aluminum bear cans, and be able to ship goods by barge to and from Idaho.

Bottom line the discrepancy between hatchery spend and wild fish protection may not be as great as you painted.

The real shame is that we have missed an opportunity to make meaningful headway in the protection of river habitats. The recent federal ESA lisitng, habitat conservation plans (HCP) and re-licensing of various dams all presented opportunities to lobby for habitat protection, restoration and generally more fish friendly land management practices. Instead we anglers choose to spend our time and energy arguing over who can catch what, pointing fingers at each other, and bemoaning past mistakes that can't be changed.

Those missed opportunities will be the next generation's lost.

Tight lines
Smalma