I've read the Jim Bain thread, the various opinions and your response. If living in Singapore has any advantages, one may be in knowing none of the people (and few of the organizations and issues) involved. From afar let me offer my thoughts:

1. Bob promised everyone on the Board anonymity when they signed up. No one should be forced to reveal who they are, where they work or how to contact them.

2. Your posts on treaty rights, fish survival/ returns and related issues are the best on the Board. They read as being very well informed, unbiased and, until the recent Cowlitz post, had the effect of defusing, not heightening, tension.

3. Like me, many Board members have come to accept a post from Salmo g as being authoritative. That you are held in such high esteem is a function both of the clarity and level of detail in your posts, and the lack of clarity/ overly emotional tone of some who disagree with you.

So while you may not have aspired to this position, you are one of the (very few) 'gurus' on the Board.

4. Because your views are accepted as gospel by so many, these same people hold you to a higher (perhaps unfair) standard than that of the average Board poster. Therefore, I hope you can understand the sense of hurt (even betrayal) if in your 'real life' you turn out to be someone with a professional stake (or even an official policy perspective to uphold)in the issues being debated.

I work in the investments business. WHO writes something is often just as important as WHAT they write. For example, if I'm reading an analyst's report that says 'Buy Amazon.com' I want to know if the author has a personal stake in Amazon's fortunes (e.g. works at one of Amazon's investment banks). US securities laws require this disclosure in most cases.

5. Now there's a big difference between posting as Salmo g and an analyst writing a company report. The analyst makes his living writing these reports. You are contributing your views on a voluntary, private basis. You are fully entitled to your privacy (as per point 1).

But I think that the other side of this discussion has a valid point, too, in requesting that a contributor who could be perceived to have a conflict of interest state in general terms what the nature of the conflict might be. For example, if someone's user profile reads "I am an employee of major power/ timber/ agribusiness company" or "Native American subsistence fisherman" then people reading the posts can do so with an increase awareness of the individual's possible biases.(No, I'm not contradicting point 1 above. I'm saying this information would be USEFUL and appreciated, NOT that you 'must' supply it.)

7. Irrespective of how much (if any) information you decide to share (or errors you wish to correct), please keep contributing to this Board. The Board would lose one of its clearest thinkers and most reasoned expert voices if you were say 'Adios' for good. But more importantly, your opinion counts, and by contributing you are helping the causes and creatures you clearly hold dear.

With respect,

Brad West