Well folks, we can't have it both ways. King County still has fish and wildlife resources worth saving. We all want to exercise our "right" to fish and hunt for those resources.

The King County Council has made the tough choice. They have voted to "protect and preserve" the fish and wildlife habitat that remains in the county.

On the one hand this is viewed as a "take" of private land by the County government.

On the other hand this kind of action may just protect enough salmon habitat to produce sufficient quantities of naturally produced coho (for example) to allow our valued fisheries to continue (oversimplification but you get the idea).

I think King County has demonstrated, with this vote, the type of action that is required within the "habitat" part of the "three H's" (habitat, harvest and hatcheries). Dramatic change is underway in both the harvest and hatchery "H's" but we see too little in the habitat "H."

King County has become accustomed to being a progressive County. Leadership among the counties is needed. Whether this survives the legal challenges or not, one must applaud the effort to lead Washington counties in the interest of protecting what fish and wildlife habitat remains.

Lets face it folks, if people (& companies?) were going to voluntarliy protect the fish and wildlife habitat that exists on their property we would not have the problems we do now and the King County council would not have been motivated to take the action they did.