I think the best analogy would be to say that we have been cutting the grass and fertilizing our lawn for years, and now have decided it isn't worth it and are going to stop fertilizing it and let it go back to its natural state. Depending on the damage done, it could take just a few years to never to get back to its original state. We can decide to speed it up by plantings or other methods, or simply sit back and watch. But the damage done and future limitations we place on the property will be the most important factors in whether it gets back to what it was years ago. If we tear down our house, plant trees, keep out people, a forest may eventually reappear.

That said, I think it is interesting to read the synapse by the department that states economics does not factor into the decision, only the welfare of the fish. Then it talks about fact that the hatchery is functionally obsolete and the current BPA funded hatchery on Abernathy Creek. It no where lists concerns of interbreeding be noted on Gray, but does state it happens on the three creeks. So, I want to know what the overall deciding criteria was in choosing the Gray River option was? The Gray/Chinook has an early returning stock, more opportunity (higher stocking numbers) and a more degraded habitat. Current stock is about 72% of Goal. The MAG has less stocking, a later and more interacting hatchery fish, and a less degraded head water. It is at about 71% of goal.

So, again, what was the reason to choose the Gray/Chinook option if it wasn't economical.