Black Bart,

To the best of my knowledge there never was any biological reasoning behind this project. It was all political reasoning by individuals whom I suspect were well meaning and well intentioned, but poorly or uninformed. The money could be better spent on alternatives that would better enhance sport fishing, like recycling hatchery steelhead, for example.

Regarding the knowing release of an infected batch of salmon, that falls in the realm of malfeasance IMO. The release of infected hatchery tule Cowlitz chinook exposes other salmonids in the lower Cowltiz River to that infective agent, whatever it is. And lower Cowlitz salmonids have a rough enough time as it is with C. shasta. They don't need another problem.

Larry B.,

As I recall, the eggs were collected at the Cowlitz salmon hatchery from tule hatchery fall chinook. As losses go, it wasn't an "irretrievable commitment of an irreplaceable resource," so there's no need to lose any sleep over it.

Another word about hatchery programs. Hatchery programs suffer losses of fish. It's a fact of life in the fish hatchery business. Measures can be implemented that reduce the frequency and severity of losses, but losses will occur. Anybody who can't accept hatchery fish losses should not be in the fish hatchery business.

Sg