Originally Posted By: AnglersRental

BPA partially supports 40% of the programs, BPA doesn't supply 40% of the overall hatchery funding. The Mitchell Act is only ~$17M in funding, and only ~$10M is directed towards hatcheries. The rest is habitat and fish screens, its a relativly small piece of the overall funding, something like 8%. I have a complete breakdown of Columbia hatchery programs and funding somewhere (it's like 50 pages long). I will see if i can upload a PDF of it somewhere and provide a link.


That would be great. Because I found your reference to BPA ~ %40 here: BPA FUNDING

But Mitchell Act funding supports about 47% of the ENTIRE smolt production in the columbia basin links here: ECONOMIC EFFECTS FROM MITCHELL ACT HATCHERIES & IEAB 2005 STUDY ON COLUMBIA RIVER TOTAL SALMON PRODUCTION

So I am beginning to doubt your handle on some of these 'facts'. No offense, but when you try to spin the Mitchell Act as a small portion of the overall hatchery funding for Columbia River salmon production, I know something is off. If you want to PM me that's fine, as I see I'm probably getting too far off topic here and don't want to hijack this thread.


Edited by rojoband (08/17/12 12:38 PM)