One of the beauties about the Hogan decision is that it spurred fishermen in the Northwest to decide what is important to them.

One of the sad realities is that too many fishermen, or at least too many posters on this and other boards, argue/debate/whine from poor information. They let their emotions control their argument instead of using logic to decide whether something is good or bad. They also let others provide them with "facts" without checking. If you debate from a factual stand, then your argument is likely to be heard. If you debate using incorrect "facts" you stand to be thought an emotional person with no knowledge of the situation.

Be accurate and get your opinion heard; be inaccurate and lose. (At this point I wanted to say "be thought a fool" instead of "lose" but I don't want to argue about that... we have better things to do.)

In some of the postings I've made lately about the "wild=hatchery" foolishness floating around, I've challenged a couple of people to read the draft policy and quote from it. Show me and others on the board where the draft says that wild fish are the same as hatchery fish. Show me where the policy says that wild fish should be replaced by hatchery fish. So far no one has responded, but it could be that those folks are still working on it. If you argue from the stand that the Hogan decision and the NOAA policy (also known as Bush's policy in some circles) is all about hatchery and wild fish being the same, you'll probably find that your argument will be disregarded.

I strongly support the idea that sports fishermen in the Northwest should be a strong presence in determining the future of our sport. I also support the need for sports fishermen to contact their representatives, but please, write from good, solid information and FACTS. Don't be thought an emotional fool.

Here are some suggestions: Don't blame the current administration for problems that have been going on for decades; keep your political views out of it. It is OK, I think, to let the representative know that you voted for him/her and are going to be watching how they deal with your concerns, but don't be threatening. Keep the conspiracy theories out of it.

For example: FNP:hile I mostly think your suggested letter will be well received, there is a small error that you should address: you say that the Hogan decision required that coastal coho from hatcheries be counted as part of the ESU-- correct, but not quite what the ruling was about. According to info I got from a Seagrant publication, the decision required that in this run, since hatchery coho were considered part of the ESU originally, they had to be considered as part of it when counted again to determine status. I would also be careful to avoid the hint of conspiracy further down in the letter.

Roballen3-- you're not going to win friends or influence anyone with an argument like that. If you want to be taken seriously, you will need to do some fact checking and clean up your argument.

Grandpa2--I think you offer a voice of reason.

If I sound like a pompous... then it's because I care about fish and fishing, I care about the Northwest, my home, and I don't want to see the decades of wasted effort and stupid decisions that followed the Boldt decision.

I really do believe that this is a great opportunity for sports fishermen to make things much better. But it will take logic and facts and effort.

My $02,

Keith