>With all due respect to your neighbor, he is
>wrong about politicians being unwilling to
>tackle WSR.

Well, he speaks from explicit (and long term) experience and, as such, I am inclined to attach to it a greater weight.

As for my own observations, in general, the political will to take the tough stances required to effectively manage Wild Steelhead (and Salmon) does not exist - To any appreciable extent. If it did, you'd see a much more active role played by the various oversight committees and individual [elected] politicians.

>Those who oppose WSR
>have had no problem trying
>to force their agenda through
>the various House committees.

Precisely my point. No political courage/will is required to go with the crowd. It's really easy for a politician to accept the argument of the [uninformed] majority.

Political courage is standing up and advancing the cause of conservation in the face of the overwhelming majority of voters who associate conservation with denial and harvest with plenty.

My speculation about pristine watersheds leading to greater harvests of hatchery fish presupposes that some rivers might be safely designated as "wild" and would support only WSR year around - No hatchery fish whatsoever.

Others might support a mix of hatchery and wild, while still others might be only hatchery fish.

However, after thinking about your skepticism, I think you're correct and I don't think this would result in increased harvest of hatchery fish. I do believe it would take pressure of the wild fish in those waters known NOT to have hatchery fish and in which WSR was the law.

Cheers,

Michael