Good information and some interesting points. However, I'm not entirely sure what to do with the information presented. I believe everything stated is accurate but I'm not sure how this changes the debate or adds/subtracts to the list of actions that need to be taken to restore salmon and steelhead. In my view, just because these fish may be subjected to unfavorable ocean conditions doesn't mean we should not protect habitats or remove obstacles to their migration or take other actions needed to restore the stocks. I'm sure you agree.

The "poor ocean conditions" argument is used consistently by those folks who think the best way to save salmon is to do nothing. (I'm not lumping you into this group). Don't breach dams, don't restore water flows, and don't reduce harvest because all the problems are in the ocean. And since we can't do anything about that, let's do nothing. This certainly is NOT my view and it's not the view of many anglers that I know. But there are folks who think this is the proper course of action.

So, even if we could all agree that ocean conditions are a factor, how does this change the debate? What actions should we take, or not take, to restore salmon? Perhaps someone smarter than I can provide some additional thoughts. <@)(((><



------------------
MSB