Ramon -
I'm afraid you are making my point for me! You state that you "absolutely can not take part in discussions that attempt to insert slanderous insuations about WT the organization". However in a thread a few days ago you all but accussed WDFW and its staff of lying - it is probably just as well that discussion disappeared.

You stated above in this thread that I don't "find WT hatchery science credible". In fact I have not seen any WT hatchery science but rather WT supporting their argument with other's science (mostly published). I have absolutley no problem with that and have no problem with that science.

My largest problem was with the mis-leading use of "science" in WT news releases. For example the citing of the Feather River hatchery yearling chinook predation on wild chinook fry as what may be typical of hatchery steelhead and coho without having the honesty to acknowledging that the study was with chinook and it may or may not be typcial for other species.

I further objected to your double standard of dismissinng my observations but using various personal communications in your arguments. It was not that I found the science not credible but rather your uses of that information.

You further state "he doesn't think nets are a problem". What I actually said was "I'm not of fan of gill nets and am concern about by-catch and the potential of selective pressures that gill nets can put on a population. However I find that they are very minor player in the depressed status of salmonid populations that we care about." As I have stated a number of times for Puget Sound chinook the information that I have examined leads me to believe that habitat factors are the largest limiters of Puget Sound wild chinook. Be happy to go into more detail if anyone wishes.

But even if one were to accept that harvest or more appropriately over-harvest is a major factor in the status of those fish the impacts from gill nets continue to less than a major factor. If you wish to look at the various harvest impacts in more detail I refer you to appendix A of the 2003 co-managers Puget Sound Chinook Fisheries Management Plan - believe WT has a copy. If you don't I'll be happy to supply you with a copy of the appendix. From memory I think you'll find that for the extreme north Sound stocks (Nooksack and Skagit) the majority of the impacts are in Canadian waters (mostly sport and troll), for the Snohomish the largest impacts come from the West Coast of Vancouver Island fisheries (sport and troll) and Puget Sound recreational. For the White River spring chinook that largest impact (more than 90% of the impacts) is from the Puget Sound recreational fisheries. For the Strait of Juan de Fuca stocks the majority of impacts occur in Alaska (SE) and BC. The South Sound stocks and the Skokomish gill net fisheries (most tribal) have larger impacts.

I find your characterizations of my comments a mis-represntation of my statements and there in lie the problem.

Tight lines
Smalma