Thank you Ramon for trying to get along with your biggest critics. Due to the fact that I have gainful employment NFR and only volunteer status in FR areas I don't have all the documentation I wish I had. Correct me if I am wrong but does not federal and state law mandate viable commercial fisheries? Also on the Columbia the hatcheries are mitigation for the adverse effects of the dams on the fishery. Correct? The commissioners who were defendants in your last lawsuit often-times defend their legal mandate to promote commercial fishing. The language has been "viable" for commercial fishing and "quality" for sports fishing.

The 3 "Hs" are all inseparable cogs in the recovery wheel....Harvest...hatcheries..habitat.
I see a balance between all three and not elimination of any one as the answer to the future of salmon..and of course, fishing.

Tell me , if you will, what sense it makes to curtail Chinook fishing in Grays Harbor (wild run) and yet allow netting? As long as things like that go on I can only resist one sided cures like hatchery closure.

I hope you can see some bright spots as I do. No one , especially me, should be painting this year's salmon run as the light at the end of the tunnel or proof that we have all done our job in recovering the threatened runs. All I know is that , for me, this has been a year like no other for sports fishing. I will also say that more of the fish I released were wild or atleast had adipose fins than those that did not.

It's just that lawsuit weapon that I really object to. It makes it tough to listen to logical arguments. So many environmental and animal rights groups are using the courts to force their agenda on the majority that anyone who uses that tactic runs the risk of being lumped in with all the much less logical groups. Atleast that's how I see it.