Having sat through that item during the recent Commission meeting what came to mind was whether these goals are mutually exclusive? Does keeping the lake open preclude the potential for sockeye reestablishing an anadromous population? If it is simply a matter of probability numbers then one has to speculate that if it doesn't happen in five years it might in 10 or 20 or 100 so why not just keep it closed (forever) on the off chance regeneration might occur? The presentation was pretty weak on the biological aspects and made it appear as someone's pet theory looking for a place to be played out. Exactly why can't the fishery remain open relative to the potential for the regeneration theory to play out?