I think our difference comes for the fact that I have a higher tolerence for self criticism and I understand that when someone has invested as much as you and I have in the process we want to believe we've done good. Unfortunately I view my involvement in the processes as an abysmal failure, personally.

Oh I disagree! Your participation was very valuable but I think you got lonesome out on that limb trying to get science first. Hopefully that changes in the future, I take that back, it has to change in the future.


As a scientific endeavor the process sucked. As a public policy exercise I also found it to be disappointing. I wish it could have been done better.

We have consensus! One thing good came from the process, the education in real terms as to what hatchery reform means post Phil Anderson. PNI, PNOB, PHOS all the terms that the Commissioners tried to get a hold of and understand in the beginning they now know what they mean ( and do ). Next time out the gate they will be ready regardless of what region of the state it is. That is what the Willapa process did for everyone. The Commission is no longer a rubber stamp for staff. They know the difficult decisions will have a price for all users & the fish. In the long haul your effort to bring science to the discussion did not get much traction. What you did do is get the bloody door open for the future & Commission. You can loose a battle and win the war. In the long haul your thoughts are correct and each time change comes science will continue to be a greater part of the discussion. You did not loose the discussion but rather staff dodged it AND the Commission knows this. You accomplished way more than you give yourself credit for.
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in