For those not involved in the WMP this may look like a bit of a dust up between Geoduck and myself but in reality it is not. The point made about stream designations was always a hidden driver in the WMP process. So lets try this.

 Primary—biologically significant, core, key, highly viable, important to recovery. Historically were a large segment of the population structure. Need to be at low risk of extinction.

 Contributing– of some significance, are viable but lower in abundance than Primary. Contribute to diversity.

 Stabilizing—a population, but may not have ever been a large segment of the population structure.

These are the three stream designations from HSRG. Each allow for a different degree of hatchery influence ( straying ) and requirements for PNOB. ( wild spawners incorporated into the hatchery eggtake ) In the previous Willapa Policy the agency basically assigned what ever stream designation to a stream that matched the production level it desired to reduce requirements for straying. For myself it is not a choice but rather you apply the designation that matches the historic value of the stream. For others not so.

The thing is as long as the WMP process was this issue was not fully vetted. Conversation to be sure but never & I mean never a in-depth look at the definitions and criteria for how they should be applied. So Geoduck has a valid point. That I have a different view is irrelevant, that it was not fully vetted is. Is the WMP different than how WDF&W has done it in other regions of the state? No idea but words have meaning. HSRG was not about what is best for the harvester but rather guidelines for how we produce fish for harvest without destroying the natural order.

It matters little what I or Geoduck feel at this stage of the game but what does matter is staff avoided a in-depth look at the issue in the WMP process. Now that should not have happened.
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in