FH5,

I really don't know why WDFW is changing the Cowlitz stocking program. We should ask them. I think they are changing it to conform with some of the hatchery management principles set forth in license and settlement agreement, like fish rearing densities. I heard that WDFW rears some fish at higher than recommended densities in order to achieve higher production. I don't have the facts at hand and cannot verify that, but it's pretty standard hearsay. Another reason for changes is to better conform to ESA requirements that the hatchery be operated in ways that promote recovery of listed fish, rather than obstructing recovery.

I don't know how much TU and AM are influencing the revisions to the hatchery plan, but they are in a better position to exert direct influence than FOC. One of the things everyone should understand regarding FERC license settlement agreements is that only those who are parties to the agreement have a seat at the table during license implementation. The reason is that the sole reason post-licensing committee exist is to implement, or oversee the utility's implementation of, the license. The logical extension is that those who didn't sign the settlement agreement don't support the license. Therefore, those parties, such as FOC, cannot be expected to oversee implementation of the license as it was agreed to. Post-license committees do not exist to try to re-write the license.

As I recall, FOC and other parties that did not sign the settlement were unwilling to make any compromises. It seemed like it had to be "their way or no way at all." That's not the way the world works. No way is not one of the choices on the table. And their way is not one of the choices on the table. That is life as I know it under the federal power act. There will be energy generated, and there will be fish and wildlife and recreation mitigation and enhancement programs.

Those who participate have the most influence. Extended participation is attained by being part of the settlement, not outside it. Individuals and organization who are outside the settlement agreement and are not on license implementation committees still have a voice, although they are often not aware of it. And, arguably, it is a lesser voice. You can express your interests to WDFW - as you urged people to do in your opening post - and you can also communicate your concerns to U S Fish & Wildlife Service, NMFS, Tacoma, and other parties to the license settlement agreement.

It might seem like we "need" rivers like the Cowlitz and Skagit (I don't see the comparison) for the masses, but like the rest of real life, what we perceive as our need and what we get are not always the same, nor is always any direct relationship between the two. I could just as well say we need a Washington State with less than two million people, so that rivers wouldn't be crowded, and so that rivers would have good enough habitat to produce harvestable numbers of wild fish. I could say "we need" it, but you already know what we've got.

BTW, I agree; you need to let WDFW know what you want. The are a lot of choices that can be made. For example, why not raise fewer hatchery coho to feed a lower Columbia gillnet fishery that wipes out any chance of saving or recovering wild coho in lower Columbia tributaries. The saved space could be re-allocated to raising the summer steelhead you love. There could still be plenty of hatchery coho returning to satiate the river recreational fishery with almost no impact to recovering wild coho runs on the Cowlitz and elsewhere in the Columbia.

Consider the ecological and economic arguments that support that alternative. Why raise hatchery coho to end up in gillnets with any remaining wild coho when the ex-vessel price is $0.65 or less and the economic return to the state from recreationally caught coho and summer steelhead is so much greater? I know it seems like pushing a very big rock up a very high hill, but face it, society has to go there eventually. The status quo is not sustainable, and WDFW and intelligent gillnetters know it.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.