The "guidelines" here is in reference to supplementation or conservation programs. There are very few of those, and the point of the guidelines is when the conservation need is met the program will end. These programs are in the NF and SF Stillaguamish and SF Nooksack to my knowledge. It's true that these conservation programs happen to be run by tribes, but all the work in Puget Sound is comanagement, and therefore by "we", I mean the state and tribes. I am not directly involved in any of these programs, though, so i don't don't what the status is for these undergoing public review. But, yes, I do believe that these types of programs include guidelines for when they should be curtailed once conservation goals are met.

Regarding most hatchery programs, i.e. the ones that produce fish for harvest, I was agreeing with the concept that rather than classifying them as one thing or another, they should be placed on a spectrum in consideration of the situation in the watershed where the program is. That's what most tribes have been advocating, but due to a number of political and institutional factors, it has been hard to get the state to think on a watershed-specific basis. That's too bad because thinking on a watershed specific basis is what's needed in order to make hatchery programs compatible with salmon recovery programs. The tribes are typically involved in all aspects of salmon recovery and want to see harvest, hatchery, and habitat efforts coordinated. i am not aware of any "failure to follow guidelines" by the tribes. I thought that the original comment was inline with the idea that hatchery programs should be tailored to the needs of each watershed. If I was wrong in my interpretation of that, then I withdraw my support with apologies.