Geoduck,

I see you're a fry yet, so it's OK for a while if you try to simplify very complex issues. I looked at your poll and thought some would see it the same as asking who's for or against motherhood. Oh, but does that include unwed mothers? And mothers-to-be due to rape? You see, real life is complex. Perhaps you get a better picture of the situation now.

I'm far more interested in why someone is for hatcheries or against hatcheries than whether they are for or against. Simple answers don't tell me much. The only reasons I can think of for opposing all state run hatcheries are a Libertarian philosophy opposed to government businesses of any kind and a mindset favoring a pre-20th century environment - which is unrealistic in my estimation.

State hatcheries, along with others, do have some adverse effects on native and wild fish populations. Closing them is one way of avoiding the effect. Reforming and modifying production are less drastic, but perhaps nearly as effective methods, while retaining many of the benefits that hatcheries provide.

Absent hatcheries, there would be almost no chinook fishing in Puget Sound or the Columbia River; no summer steelhead fishing in most of Washington State; very little winter steelhead harvest in the state; no coho fishing in the ocean, Columbia River, or its tributaries; very little lowland lake trout fishing; and almost no alpine lake fishing.

I enjoy fishing, and I'm especially fond of eating some fish. My interests are better served by the continued operation of hatcheries, so I favor reform and modifying operations over closing them.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.