All your arguments are good when it comes to protection of wild salmon and steelhead. By balance I mean seeing the other side and trying to understand what brings about the arguments about spill at Bonneville and all the lawsuits concerning the ESA which have lead to the hatchery/wild debates and possible regulations.

My question is not one of advocacy but one of probing to see if you can sit in your opponent's chair. Understanding the other side is important if you are to win the battles you choose to fight.

By way of a question we may be able to see why we have these opponents in the first place. Is the orchardist on the banks of the Columbia to be punished because others have ruined our fisheries for the last 100 years? Should he be forced out of business to save the salmon? Of course, you say? What if the orchard belonged to you?

We are fishermen and we advocate for things that protect and enhance salmon and steelhead. The government could choose to be on our side to the peril of all others and get run out of town on a rail or they can seek a balance to keep the fields irrigated, the dams producing electricity, the lumber yards full and businesses robust and growing all the while helping to save our valuable resource, salmon.

Balance is the challenge that might just be harder than getting a Coho to bite in the Snohomish but balance is probably inevitable.