Parts of SG's Cowlitz post do read like NMFS propaganda. In particular, the statement "they continue to get better at collecting downstream migrants (the most important part of restoration)" reflects NMFS's reliance on transporting smolts in trucks and barges rather than improving the migration habitat of the river. Also, as SG himself has pointed out on other issues, using one years returns as proof of a recovery trend may elicit warm-and-fuzzy feelings but isn't necessarily accurate. Tweaking the status quo doesn't really change anything. Just look at the Snake River.

Still, questionable though SG's motives may be in this case, I don't think that one person has the right to decide to broadcast SG's name and employer over the internet just because he was fired up about the Cowlitz meeting. Given the privacy issues already mentioned, that was a big step and should have been thought through a bit more. Add to that the (still)unsubstantiated accusations of attempting to create confusion by posting conflicting posts and Jim's post begins to appear pretty paranoid. So, Jim, while I compliment your ability to detect BS, I think you should have let yourself cool off before writing that post.