AuntyM

I want to try to make fishing issues alot less attack filled. I think most of us are on the same side with varying opinions on individual issues. We are all in our own ways trying to make a difference so let's not have a contest.

Rob...as usual I disagree but appreciate your passion. There will be a very highly regarded study coming out soon that will show that restoration of wild populations will be more successful with a specific balance of hatchery and wild stocks....not too many hatchery fish and not zero hatchery fish. The scientists behind this yet to be released study are world reknowned and their work and documentation will be hard to refute....Rob I'm sure you will refute it before you read it but you might try to look at the future of fisheries and get off that soap box that accuses someone like me of being greedy and wanting to destroy all wild fish. That makes your other arguments much less effective.

AM: I just learned of the tribal fishery of ESA listed chums. If that is true, it is, in fact, a crime. Where were our leaders, state, federal, environmental etc. on this one?

If anyone has the inside scoop on how this happened and why our watchdogs failed us I would love to hear from them.

Responding to 2 points:

That hatcheries have never helped recover wild fish. That is not correct. Hood Canal summer chum were a very depressed stock that was listed as threatened under the ESA. A hatchery program directed at summer chum recovery operated for about 12 years on about 8 Hood Canal tributaries. Summer chum have rebounded on most of those streams, with "natural origin" chum meeting and exceeding spawning escapement goals for certain rivers, like the Quillcene. I think all the summer chum hatchery programs have been discontinued now, but I'm not sure. Nonetheless, it's now a pretty vacuous argument to claim that hatchery programs cannot help wild fish populations.

Because Hood Canal natural production summer chum are meeting or exceeding their spawning escapement goals, treaty fishing on that stock was approved by tribal managers and NOAA Fisheries.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Please review below, excerpts from a document called “Review of Salmon and Steelhead Supplementation” (June 2003), prepared by the Bonneville Power Administration’s Independent Scientific Advisory Board. The ISAB prepared the Supplementation Review at the specific request of NOAA Fisheries and the Northwest Power Planning Council, an agency of the BPA. I have excerpted and abridged the eight principal findings of the review, from the Executive Summary. (They are abridged in the interest of brevity and clarity, an attempt not entirely successful; these are scientists after all. If anyone feels inclined to accuse me of cherry-picking, here is a link to the entire document: http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/isab/isab2003-3.htm.)

While these findings are admittedly conservative and cautious, as scientific language generally is, taken together, they support my statement: the idea that hatchery salmon are capable of contributing to the recovery of ESA- listed wild populations is completely unproven. As far as the other statements I made regarding the impacts of hatcheries on wild-fish populations, they are supported by an entire bibliography of scientific literature. I invite grandpa and Keith to do THEIR homework.

To be fair, the findings below could support Auntie’s position: “We do not have definitive evidence that hatchery intervention is not a workable solution YET.” But the point is that this would be a very thin thread to hang an entire recovery strategy from, as this policy proposal does.

If the best you can say is that we can’t PROVE hatchery-supplementation WON’T work, then it at very best irresponsibly premature to say that hatchery fish are capable of contributing to recovery, particularly in the face of the overwhelming scientific evidence of the risks hatcheries pose to wild populations, and the poor record of existing programs documented by the ISAB review. (Keep in mind that the ISAB WORKS FOR THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. When NOAA requested the review, they were looking for cover for this policy-proposal; this is what they got instead.)

I think Dave Vedder has it about right. You don’t have to be “anti-hatchery” to be against this policy or to recognize it for what it is, at best irresponsible, at worst a cynical attempt to circumvent true recovery, for the benefit of particular stakeholders. Make no mistake, if this policy is adopted, it WILL result in the early and inappropriate de-listing of salmon and steelhead stocks throughout the NW, allowing forestry, development, agricultural, and other economic interests to damage and destroy fish habitat without the important restrictions currently in place. Yes, Lautenbauer’s letter and statements by Bob Lohn give lip service to protecting wild fish, but the policy itself is artfully vague enough to allow NOAA to do essentially anything it wants, with no way to challenge it. It’s not just bad science; it’s very bad public policy.

The Bush administration wants you to believe it is offering a future of plenty of hatchery fish to catch, even if they aren’t quite the same as the wild salmon and steelhead that are your children’s birthright. Even if you think it will work and that it’s good enough (I don’t believe it will work, and I don’t believe it is good enough), what you are really being offered is a future of “adequate” numbers of facsimile salmon returning to completely spoiled rivers. They believe you will be satisfied with what Jim Lichatowich called “salmon without rivers.” Will you be? Washington Trout will not be.

(BTW grandpa: I did not say “Bush.” I said “Bush Administration,” of which Admiral Lautenbauer and Mr Lohn are certainly a part. They are both Bush appointees and serve at the pleasure of the president.)

The ISAB findings:

“Finding 1: Hatchery programs in the Columbia River Basin provide some salmon harvest and reintroduction opportunities. Those hatchery programs which are based on hatchery broodstock lines, and which allow the hatchery products to interact intensively with natural populations, almost certainly impose a large cost on the affected natural populations. For hatchery programs where the hatchery and natural population are integrated, the empirical basis is inadequate for determining the cost to the natural population.

“Hatchery programs in the Columbia River Basin release nearly 200 million salmon and steelhead smolts into the natural environment annually. These releases of hatchery-reared juveniles can return large numbers of adult fish, providing commercial, sport, and tribal harvest. Hatchery-reared juveniles are also beginning to be used to reintroduce salmon into areas where they had become extirpated. Most of the hatchery programs are not integrated with natural production because they rely extensively on fish of hatchery-origin for their broodstock. Nevertheless, the hatchery productions from these programs are present in large numbers on the breeding grounds of many natural spawning stocks. In some cases this is deliberate; in others it is inadvertent. Either way, this constitutes a supplementation action.

“The impacts of these hatchery programs on the extinction risk to (or recovery of) the remaining natural populations of salmon and steelhead have not been determined empirically. These knowledge gaps need to be filled.

“Finding 2: Contemporary genetic/evolutionary theory, and the literature that supports it, indicate clearly that supplementation presents substantial risks to natural populations of salmon and steelhead.

“Supplementation can affect the adaptation of natural populations to their environment by altering genetic variation within and among populations, a process that can negatively affect a population's fitness through inbreeding depression, outbreeding depression, and/or domestication selection.

“These genetic risks of supplementation suggest that it would be prudent to continue to treat supplementation as experimental, that supplementation should only be deployed on a limited scale, and that better and more extensive monitoring of such experiments be required to generate an empirical record capable of evaluating those experiments.

“Finding 3. The immediate net demographic benefit or harm to population abundance from supplementation depends on three things: intrinsic biological parameters of the stock in its environment; policy constraints; and management control variables. The integration of these factors, much less their measurement, has not been adequately considered in supplementation evaluations to date.

“Finding 4. Current monitoring and evaluation efforts are inadequate to estimate either benefit or harm from ongoing supplementation projects. The correct parameters are not being consistently measured.


“Finding 5. Columbia River Basin supplementation projects are considered to be ‘experimental.’ Unfortunately, inadequate replication and widespread failure to include unsupplemented reference streams coupled with a lack of coordination among projects make it unlikely that these projects (as currently conducted) will provide convincing quantification of the benefits or harm attributable to supplementation.

“There are enough streams in the basin already being "treated" with supplementation. Future investment should be in establishing robust experiments with unsupplemented reference streams and rigorous monitoring. Treatments on streams that do not have a matching reference stream should be terminated.

“Finding 6. The following operational conclusions emerged from our review of case histories of Columbia River Basin supplementation programs:

“Among the programs that we assessed, the presence of appreciable numbers of hatchery-origin adults on the spawning grounds in the late 1980s and early 1990s did not prevent declines in the abundance of natural-origin spawning adults. There is no evidence that similar problems will not occur in the future.


“Finding 7. Many hypotheses and conjectures concerning supplementation are largely unevaluated. This finding is based on our review of case histories of Columbia River Basin supplementation programs. Three examples are provided.

“Assertion 1. Even though natural populations supplemented with hatchery-origin adults through the mid-1990s exhibited a continued downward trend in natural-origin adult abundance, it has been claimed that supplementation still aided the natural populations by providing additional adults for spawning. The validity of this assertion is unsubstantiated. A test of this claim would have required an experimental design employing unsupplemented reference populations.

“Assertion 2. It has been claimed that supplementation will provide a net ‘demographic boost’ to a target population, because the total production of offspring from natural spawning of the hatchery-origin adults is larger than the production of offspring that would have occurred if the broodstock in the previous generation had been allowed to spawn naturally. This assertion has not been tested because the reproductive performance of hatchery-origin adults spawning in the wild has not been adequately compared to that of natural-origin adults.

“Assertion 3. It has been claimed that the long-term fitness of progeny that result from the in-river breeding of hatchery-origin individuals with hatchery-origin or with natural-origin individuals is comparable to the fitness of progeny from two natural-origin individuals. This assertion is unevaluated in programs following an integrated breeding protocol, and it is contradicted by empirical evidence on the natural spawning performance of domesticated hatchery strains.


“Finding 8. With our current knowledge base, a technically valid risk-benefit analysis of supplementation is dominated by the high level of scientific uncertainty about the possible magnitudes of the potential beneficial and detrimental effects.”


Addtionally, in response to a specific question from NOAA about “what would be an appropriate level of intervention,” the ISAB gave the following response (abridged):

“Currently available empirical information is inadequate to predict the outcome of a thoughtful conservative supplementation effort for any potential target population or on collective populations … (This after pointing out that no such “thoughtful conservative supplementation effort” currently exists). …(The ISAB) argues for limiting the scale of supplementation and for ensuring that a considerable fraction of the populations not be supplemented….”

Again: The foundation of this proposal, that hatchery salmon are capable of contributing to the recovery of ESA- listed wild populations, is completely unproven.

Ramon Vanden Brulle
Washington Trout

I'm afraid I beg to differ slightly with Salmo G re the Hood Canal summer chum program.

First, I will acknowledge the the HC summer chum supplementation effort is among the best designed hatchery programs in the region. If nothing else, it includes a sunset for the program, something very few others have. (However it does not include unsuplemented reference streams, as the ISAB recommends; it is an accepted conerstone of science that conclusions are dangerous to draw without "control" groups for comparison.) Like SG, I am not sure if it has actually sunsetted yet.

Nonetheless, I will also acknowledge that it's results so far are reasonably promising. However, he is jumping the gun and overstating his case (not to say being vacuous) to call it a success, and is taking a position that the operators of the program are not even prepared to take, at least in personal communications to me. Simply put, you cannot know whether a supplementation effort has been successful until several salmon generations AFTER the program has been discontinued, to see if the population can sustain the increase in productivity on its own, without the ongoing demographic boost the continuing supplementaion effort provides. No responsible scientist or manager would claim otherwise, certainly not the by and large thoughtful and responsible managers running the HC program.

Again: the preliminary evidence from the HC program notwithstanding, the foundation of this proposal, that hatchery salmon are capable of contributing to the recovery of ESA- listed wild populations, is completely unproven. Maybe it can work; I continue to be skeptical, but who knows. The point is, again, that "maybe" should not be good enough to base an entire recovery strategy on.

(BTW Auntie: almost all listed stocks of salmon and steelhead suffer allowed direct harvest, including Puget Sound chinook, and most listed Columbia River stocks, including ENDANGERED upper Columbia steehead, which enjoy direct harvest pressure from sport anglers on the Methow.)

Ramon Vanden Brulle
Washington Trout

AM: I believe that a hatchery program could be beneficial in restoring wild runs. From what I hear that was the case on the OP summer run chums.

What I am concerned about is language in the NPR that clearly says they will be able to count hatchery fish when determining weather or not the wild run needs protection.

It may be that the wording simply needs tightening to explain that this will only be done when the hatchery program is operated to help restore the wild runs. But as it now read they can simply declare a run healthy if there are lots of hatchery-raised fish in the system. If we use that standard damn few runs will be in need of protection.

Yes, I know we have a letter from NOAA that says that is not their intent. But the new rule certainly gives them that choice. Do you trust current and future NOAA administrators to protect wild fish with such permissive regulations on the books?

Remember these rules came about as a result of a lawsuit brought by a consortium of loggers, cattlemen, land developers and attorneys. Do you think they want to protect our wild fish?

Auntie:

I think "distinct posibility" probably overstates the case. But I have never said, and WT has never said, that hatcheries could NEVER work. What we have said is that they are not working currently, that so far attempts to make them work have been woefully inadequate, and that we would be much better off with no hatchery programs than with what we've got.

Having said that, there are some isolated experimental programs out there that deserve to be played out, and we're not trying to keep that "important work" from going forward. (Having said THAT, I will adimit that we remain skeptical, given the record, but programs designed along the lines of what the ISAB and other scientists have recommended, deserve their chance.)

But no one should try to use the tiny percentage of programs that are designed well to justify continuing the overwhelming majority of poorly designed and executed programs that currently exist. In other words, a good program on HC does nothing to justify a program on say the Snohomish that results in stray rates of highly domesticated hatchery stocks as high as 50%, with no serious monitoring or attempt to control the resultant harmful impacts to wild stocks. Or put another way, keep the HC summer chum program and lose the rest until we know for sure if the HC approach does work and would be applicable to other basins and stocks? Sure!

And again, preliminary results that show promise are no justification for rushing forward and declaring the problem solved so that we can base an entire region-wide recovery strategy on hatchery supplementation, as this proposal does. Dave has the right idea, look who's all for this, and decide how much you trust them.

Ramon Vanden Brulle
Washington Trout

Here is the policy-proposal itself, copied form the federal register:

NMFS proposes to adopt the following new
policy on the consideration of hatchery
fish in Endangered Species Act listing
determinations for Pacific salmon and
steelhead:

1. Under NMFS’ Policy on Applying
the Definition of Species under the
Endangered Species Act to Pacific
Salmon (ESU policy)(56 FR 58612;
November 20, 1991), a distinct
population segment (DPS) of a Pacific
salmonid species is considered for
listing if it meets two criteria: (a) it must
be substantially reproductively isolated
from other conspecific population units;
and (b) it must represent an important
component in the evolutionary legacy of
the species. A key feature of the ESU
concept is the recognition of genetic
resources that represent the ecological
and genetic diversity of the species.
These genetic resources can reside in a
fish spawned in a hatchery (hatchery
fish) as well as in a fish spawned in the
wild (natural fish).

2. In delineating an ESU to be
considered for listing, NMFS will
identify all populations that are part of
the ESU, including populations of
natural fish (natural populations),
populations of hatchery fish (hatchery
fish), and populations that include both
natural fish and hatchery fish (mixed
populations). Hatchery fish with a level
of genetic divergence between the
hatchery stocks and the local natural
populations that is no more than what
would be expected between closely
related populations within the ESU (a)
are considered part of the ESU, (b) will
be considered in determining whether
an ESU should be listed under the ESA,
and (c) will be included in any listing
of the ESU.

3. Status determinations for Pacific
salmonid ESUs will be based on the
status of the entire ESU. In assessing the
status of an ESU, NMFS will apply this
policy in support of the conservation of
naturally-spawning salmon and the
ecosystems upon which they depend,
consistent with section 2(b) of the ESA.
16 U.S.C. 1531(b). Natural populations
that are stable or increasing, are
spawning in the wild, and have
adequate spawning and rearing habitat
reduce the risk of extinction of the ESU.
Such natural populations, particularly
those with minimal genetic contribution
from hatchery fish, can provide a point
of comparison for the evaluation of the
effects of hatchery fish on the likelihood
of extinction of the ESU.

4. Status determinations for Pacific
salmonid ESUs generally consider four
key attributes: abundance, productivity,
genetic diversity, and spatial
distribution. The effects of hatchery fish
on the status of an ESU will depend on
which of the four key attributes are
currently limiting the ESU, and how the
hatchery fish within the ESU affect each
of the attributes. The presence within an
ESU of hatchery fish with a level of
genetic divergence between the hatchery
stocks and the local natural populations
that is no more than what would be
expected between closely related
populations within the ESU can affect
the status of the ESU, and thereby, affect
a listing determination, by contributing
to increasing abundance and
productivity of the ESU, by improving
spatial distribution, and by serving as a
source population for repopulating
unoccupied habitat. Conversely, a
hatchery program managed without
adequate consideration of its
conservation effects can affect a listing
determination by reducing genetic
diversity of the ESU and reducing the
productivity of the ESU. In evaluating
the effect of hatchery fish on the status
of an ESU, the presence of a long-term
hatchery monitoring and evaluation
program is an important consideration.

5. Hatchery programs are capable of
producing more fish than may be
immediately useful in the conservation
and recovery of an ESU and can play an
important role in fulfilling trust and
treaty obligations with regard to harvest
of some Pacific salmonid populations.
For ESUs listed as threatened, NMFS
will, where appropriate, exercise its
authority under section 4(d) of the ESA
to allow the harvest of listed hatchery
fish that are surplus to the conservation
and recovery needs of the ESU in
accordance with approved harvest
plans.

Take out all the fluff and Ramon's "case" is obviously anti-hatchery. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, flies like a duck and quacks like a duck it is probably a duck. Washington Trout is against hatcheries and all the bogus ramblings from Ramon will never change that. A good trial lawyer or carpet bagger can make a convincing case for the defendant and then turn right around and make just as convincing a case for the plaintiff.

I am going to look into the new study no one seems to be picking up on which will show with supportable science that a balance of hatchery and wild fish is far more effective than a no hatchery plan or a plan with too many hatchery fish. I talked to someone who is very well known and respected recently and his opinion is that Puget Sound Chinook would not last 2 years with a zero hatchery model.

I might be more sympathetic and attentive to Washington Trout's public statements made by Ramon VB if their obvious end game wasn't always trying to prove that hatcheries are bad and unworkable. Witness the instant argument when any successful program is cited by a very credible source. After all, we are on the cusp of significant reforms which need a chance to perform. I think that is what has revived Washington Trout again. The ominous reality that hatchery reform programs might just work to significantly help wild fish while still providing sports , commercial and tribal fisheries. The reforms are going to take place and I hope to see the day they work and Ramon's rhetoric is on the trash heap where it belongs.

I am , by the way, also concerned about the motives of the NOAA proposals and the Bonneville arguments. We'll see what develops there as a bunch of good folks are standing guard to prevent abuses.

first off let me start by defining restoration.. the only form of restoration that should ever be acceptable for anyone interested in wild fish..

if a hatchery program was successful in restoring a wild run it would have to

1, have to use fish that are from the river in question.. NO outplanting of any kind.. not even with similar stocks they have to be exactly the same..

for instance, upper skagit fish cannot be used to restore Sauk river fish... thats replacement not restoration!

2. hatchery planting has to end and the run must be completely self sustaining.. if you keep planting them it is impossible to determine th effectivness of wild spawners..


anything that does not meet these two criteria cannot be viewed as a successful hatchery restoration of a wild run..
to my knowledge that has never taken place..
I talked with a Bio from loong live the kings and at that time she was very uncertain about how successful the hatchery summer chums were at reproducing...

by all other accounts even wild brood stock IE first generation hatchery fish have a reduced level of productivity compared to wild fish so much so that they produced at the same or nearly the same poor rate as regular hatchery fish...

in short the only way a restoration hatchery can be viewed as a success is if the fish planted are exactly the same as what was origionally there and if thoes hatchery fish are able to maintain a population all by themselves

anything else is a failure and a waste of money that could have been better spent buying body armor my the boys and girls in Iraq

Get rid of all the scare tactics, the sky-is-falling rhetoric, emotionally charged words, fallacies, the avoidance of realities of current habitat regulations, slanted prose and other propaganda tools in use in this thread, and you come up with several observations, or at least I do.

First, everyone seems to appreciate the value of wild salmon and steelhead.

Second, Washington Trout wants all hatcheries closed and all hatchery programs stopped. They also seem to be dogmatically against anything proposed by the "Bush administration."

Third, the scientific panel that investigated hatcheries and wild fish populations in the Columbia system have no proof, empirical or experimental, that hatcheries can help restore wild fish OR will hurt wild fish populations.

These same scientists urge caution on expanding "supplementation" of wild runs in the basin.

Fourth, the best science today, the evidence provided by the Hood Canal summer chum program, indicates that an enlightened hatchery program can help restore wild fish.

While there are a lot of conclusions one could draw from the above, I have to wonder at what Washington Trout's, or perhaps just RVB's, real agenda is. It doesn't seem to be acting in the best interest of the resource, wild fish.

Certainly, all such restoration plans must be looked at critically: those from the feds, states, tribes, WT's, TU's, our own. Political and other agendas should not play a part.

My $.02,

Keith

Ramon is correct that I jumped the gun claiming the HC summer chum hatchery program is a success in recovering the stock. At this time, it appears successful, but I agree that the final test requires that these fish naturally sustain themselves for a couple generations. Unfortunately, it takes a lot of time to get complete answers to most fishery questions.

I think Dave is correct that the proposed policy is designed to allow the administration the leeway to delist, or at least fail to protect, wild salmon and steelhead. This is consistent with agency rumors that the Administration is not satisfied that Lohn hasn’t delisted species. Renewed efforts at delisting are envisioned after the election, and there is a strategy to achieve delisting. The proposed policy is consistent with that strategy, but not the only part of it.

Kjackson,

WT and others are reasonably skeptical of Bush Administration policy proposals. Saving wild salmon and steelhead is directly at odds with the Administration’s approach to natural resource conservation and utilization. Recovering wild fish requires reversing the trend of steadily increasing per capita consumption of scarce resources, such that we each use less water and energy, on average. The Administration’s approach is to increase development of water, land, energy to keep pace with increasing demand per capita and an increasing population. Salmon won’t be recovered on the Columbia system by increasing irrigation and energy production.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Ok we know that a lot of people don't like Washington trout and some people do we have been down that road too many times. Back to the issue.

1) Do you want hatchery fish counted as wild fish when determining ESA listing? I know they say they have to be similar but that will be left up to NOAA to determine. Do you trust them to always do the right thing right now?

2) Should Rainbow population included when determining ESA for Steelhead?

Those are the straight forward issues here. Not closing hatcheries. Not bashing WT. The issuse.

JJ

JJ:

Thanks for cutting through the crap. The question before us is - Can we gauge the need for ESA listing of wild stocks by measuring the number of genetically similar hatchery fish in the system?

Remember that we share 97% of our DNA with a chimpanzee. (I am not sure that's accurate, but I have seen it reported many times.) Using that comparison we can judge the chimpanzee populations are doing just fine as there are lots of humans in the system.

Wild fish all the way. Shoot the hatcheries in the head and send the meat fisherman to Safeway. Ban all nets . Make the tribes adhere to the same fishing laws as the rest of us Americans. Restore all riparian habitat. It's really simple :p

Come on Dave..Everyone knows that there is very little difference between most humans and most chimpanzees.

Do you really think that any administration should be single issue oriented. In other words, should a responsible government only care about salmon and ignore irrigation, land use and power completely? Is a balance even possible?

Grandpa:

The balance we have seen for the past 100 years has resulted the decimation of many of our wild salmon runs.

I think most who ask for balance may be forgetting that the scales have been tipped so far against the fish that any true balance would be much more draconian than I or most would support. I know you are not one of those for whom balance is a code word for screw the fish let's make some more money. But there are many for whom that is the case.

In this instance we are simply talking about how to determine if a particular run of wild fish is endangered. Once that determination is made we can decide how to best protect the stocks. To date we have allowed harvest of fish that had previously been declared endangered. That is not balance!

In the name of balance would you be willing to delist an endangered stock simply because the hatchery run in that river is strong? Do you think any stocks should be declared endangered?

Grandpa,

I try to stay out of these arguments, but I'm curious about the person you spoke to that said that Puget Sound chinook would go away in 2 years if it weren't for hatcheries. As far as I know, Puget Sound chinook return as 2's, 3's, 4's, and 5 year old fish, so it should take more than 2 years for them to disappear, right? Did you mean 2 generations? I don't even think that is reasonable given that there is natural production taking place even in, shall we say, less than optimal habitat.

For instance, the Department operates traps throughout Puget Sound rivers that collect chinook smolts (and other fish). Obviously, mother nature is producing some fish that emigrate to these traps, so I'm not sure what you mean by them going away in 2 years.

What am I missing? Any chance you can "out" this respected person, so I can give them a call?

Personally, I think hatcheries and the arguments for hatcheries are one of the biggest scams in the Northwest. I can't believe that sportsmen or tribes for that matter, accept hatchery fish as an acceptible substitute for wild fish and protection of habitats. The phrase "Don't piss on me and tell me it's raining" comes to mind.

FP

All your arguments are good when it comes to protection of wild salmon and steelhead. By balance I mean seeing the other side and trying to understand what brings about the arguments about spill at Bonneville and all the lawsuits concerning the ESA which have lead to the hatchery/wild debates and possible regulations.

My question is not one of advocacy but one of probing to see if you can sit in your opponent's chair. Understanding the other side is important if you are to win the battles you choose to fight.

By way of a question we may be able to see why we have these opponents in the first place. Is the orchardist on the banks of the Columbia to be punished because others have ruined our fisheries for the last 100 years? Should he be forced out of business to save the salmon? Of course, you say? What if the orchard belonged to you?

We are fishermen and we advocate for things that protect and enhance salmon and steelhead. The government could choose to be on our side to the peril of all others and get run out of town on a rail or they can seek a balance to keep the fields irrigated, the dams producing electricity, the lumber yards full and businesses robust and growing all the while helping to save our valuable resource, salmon.

Balance is the challenge that might just be harder than getting a Coho to bite in the Snohomish but balance is probably inevitable.

Sorry FP I won't out anyone here on the Personal Attack Channel......

Hatchery fish are not substitutes for wild fish. I think it is perfectly factual to say that without hatcheries in this day and age we would see the faster demise of the wild stocks and certainly would have little or no fishing which would mean we have nothing more to discuss except politics.