FNP-- You're right; judicial rulings do form precedents from which other rulings then can be made; I believe it's called case law. The Hogan decision will have an impact on other cases. However, the gloom-and-doom hand wringing isn't warranted-- yet. This decision doesn't change the Endangered Species Act, and we still have a lot of species that need protecting, such as dolly varden and searun cutthroat.

My point was that there is a lot of misinformation floating around in cyber space of the subject, and it's not doing anyone any good. There is also a lot of biased information being promoted as truth, and that is not good at all.

There is a lot of good coming out of all this discussion--we're thinking (some of us) about the problems of wild fish and fish culture. I find a lot of comments like yours about selective harvest are right on the money. I had an eye-opening conversation with Gary Loomis about selective harvest and he made some valid points. His thought is that we bring back fish traps-- from which we can take hatchery fish and release wild fish back to the river. The traps could supply the treaty tribes with fish and commercials as well, if that's part of the game plan, and netting wouldn't be necessary.

But I'm digressing once again. The facts are available to anyone with a computer and the ability to download pdf files. Don't take my word for it. Do the research and come to your own conclusions.

Keith