Plunker,

As you guessed, I am personally in favor of the moratorium, though I think the two-year time span is not particularly biologically meaningful (you'd learn a lot more from a 5-6 year moratorium). But you gotta start somewhere right?

As far as WT goes, our hearts are definitely with the supporters. I plan on testifying in support of the moratorium, representing WT. Having said that, we have not taken a higher profile role for exactly the reasons you very accurately articulated. In our bylaws, we are pledged not to take positions on allocation issues. While we believe that ending the harvest of wild steelhead is biologically appropriate at this point, and we find the arguments against the moratorium less than compelling, the issues of allocation have become such a clear and significant aspect of this debate that we have made the decision to allow others to carry most of the water on this one, most notably the WSC. They have done a great job so far.

I know this reply is plenty politic, but I will of course be offering a more detailed summary of our position at the hearing. See you there.

Ramon Vanden Brulle
Washington Trout