Hey, folks--I don't have a bunch of time this morning because of some nasty deadlines, but I'll try to respond to a few comments above.

Thanks for the kind words, ET. You're right about the political scene skewing reality. There was a quote in this morning's Peninsula Daily News from a Saudi sheik who called the presidential race an "periodic tribal warfare;" I thought that was a pretty telling remark for this year.

Aunty M-- You're right; Gary Loomis is a very intelligent person. His Fish First group on the Lewis is doing some great things. He was even praised by George Bush in a visit to the NW within the past six months or so for his leadership in salmon restoration efforts. Of course, Bush was just saying that as a smokescreen to cover up his real agenda (sorry, couldn't resist).

Keta-- don't know where I labeled anyone as "radical" in my statements (or even used the word for that matter). If you define what you mean by "environmental movement" and "anyone of any standing", I'll try to find a quote or two. None come to mind at the moment, but then I tend to turn off diatribe (if I recognize it as such) unless it gets my knickers in a twist as some of this stuff has. But get this straight-- I don't propose wholesale resource exploitation of anything with no regard to consequences. The environment needs to be safeguarded, but I believe in conservation: the wise use of natural resources. Shutting up resources so that only a very limited few can enjoy them goes against the grain. That doesn't mean I'm against roadless areas, national parks and refuges for plants or animals.

FNP-- You seem to think that the Hogan decision is still up in the air-- is this a fair assessment of your position? I don't know for sure that it is as I'm still trying to find more info on the decision (and some things are changing still), but it's my understanding that the ruling is almost a certainty to stand. In a lot of ways, this parallels the Boldt decision-- and we know how long that has been in place. I don't know if you were around and aware of the controversy at the time, but I was. There was nearly a civil war over that decision. It was challenged over and over in court. How many court cases did the state of Washington win? None. Zero. Zip. Nada. The decision still stands.

It makes me wonder how much time and how many millions of dollars were wasted fighting that-- time and money that could have been used for habitat protection and fish restoration.

And if, as some have argued, this should go to the Supreme Court, then realize that the chances of it getting heard are almost as good as me catching a 40-pound steelhead this summer. The Boldt decision gave racial preference over a resource because of treaty rights. The Hogan decision said that NOAA had to count salmon the same way twice when making rules. Which decision has constitutional implications? I'll leave you to figure that one out. Since the Supreme Court deals with constitutional interpretation, I'm putting my money on the Boldt decision being the most likely. However, the Supreme Court refused to hear it.

If the Boldt decision wasn't heard, then the chances that the Hogan ruling will be are practically nil.

I would hope that all this discussion means that fishermen do become more involved in the process. It's given me some food for thought on how involved I am. And regardless of which side of the fence you're on regarding recent developments, one thing is pretty certain: we're all here because we like to catch fish. And that's a good thing.

My $.02,

Keith