If you're new to fishing the Olympic Pen streams this might be of interest. Or, if you're tired of fighting the fleet of boats on the Bogie this might be of interest.

The December Salmon Trout Steelheader has a good article on how to fish the Queets. It includes a map of the launches and river spots. The article quotes guides from Forks saying that's where they go to fish on days off.

That comment in itself is a "clue" about whether it's a good place to go to catch fish.

This isn't a super popular, well known river like the Bogie so it isn't as crowded. Plus it's harder to get to and you have to read the rules on fishing in the Park regulations since only the upper Queets is open to non-tribal people. (Have to have a tribal guide to fish the lower Queets)

The article does a good job of explaining things. :p :p

its not super popular cause people havent been talking about it alot..........

On any given weekend day starting from salmon season until the end of february the number of cars parked by the road is already testimony to it's popularity and productivity. There aren't as many days when the river isn't high and dirty in comparison to the Bogachiel. It isn't really that much of a hike-in unless you're not physically fit. The launches couldn't be easier to find either. As for access, yeah sure, hands down this beats the Bogachiel by miles.

I had the pleasure of reading this info this weekend down in oregon at my uncle's house.I found the artical to be some what full of B.S. with some mis leading info in it.Good luck with that.Good luck,
STRIKE ZONE

If you liked to get skunked this is the place to be. If someone upstream takes a leak in the river it goes out. 90% of the time it's blown & the other 85% the nets are in. Being not crowded is funny too. This place gets tons of boats. Watch out for cougars, logjams, & MF ripoffs. Seems it's always pouring rain on the OP. But that all adds up the Steelhead season.

Hmmm. "Where the guides go to fish on their days off". How much sense does that make? Don't guides generally fish the same water they're going to fish with clients on their days off so they know where fish are in the system? I haven't read the article, but I'm questioning both the article's validity, and the motivation behind this post. Is someone trying to divert traffic off their home river "The Bogey"? In the past 8 years, I've watched the Queets go from no boats, to a relative zoo. The fishing is no better or worse that any other river in this state. It is what it is.

While I have never fished the Queets, I would heartily agree with Kyle's comments. Any river can be hot one day, and ice cold the next. Sometimes folks hit a pocket of holding water that, at that time and place, is holding fish. Folks go flocking out there expecting limits + and get bupkis...but they keep going because they were told it was a "hot" river.

IMMHO (very humble), pick a section of (insert your favorite river here) XXXXX River, learn every nook, cranny and rock in it, and you will find the fish when they are there.

If the fish aren't there...you can't make them bite. And if they are there and won't bite...you can't stop 'em.

Mis Dos Centavos:

MB

Like most systems with a hatchery producing steelhead, the early action on the Queets is near/below the hatchery, in this case the mouth of Salmon River. Salmon River hatchery steelehead originated from the Cook Creek stock at the Quinault National Fish Hatchery. This stock has an advanced run timing (early) not unlike the Chambers Creek stock that is commonly used at WDFW hatcheries (e.g., Bogachiel). This run is typically over in February... early or late depending on the year.

The late action for natives can be absolutely red hot... like a lot of other rivers. The returns of wild steelhead in the Queets system used to run around 10,000. I understand that the returns are now only 4 or 5 thousand. Not sure why this is as the salmon and steelhead in this system are intensively managed with very good data sources providing decision makers with information not available in most systems for most salmon and steelhead populations. The salmon populations in the last 3-4 years are huge so I am not sure why the swing.

Upstream of the Clearwater, the Queets is a lot like the Hoh with a combination of glacial til and clay bank (monster ones) erosion that can really make the water turbid for long periods of time. If you are local and get lots of chances to see the water, you can pick and choose your days to fish. If are from way out of town, the Queets is not going to be your first choice because of the "hit or miss" nature of the water clarity.

I have to agree with Mike B, if you find a stretch of river to learn on and fish it as often as you can, by the season's end you should have figured out the traveling lanes, holding water, permanent structures, pocket water, hydrology, technique best suited for whatever water condition you encounter.
If you just chase reports you will be missing out on the days when fishing is hot. Patience and persistence will pay off with good dividends under the usual circumstances.

PNW ... Don't state and tribal managers disagree on the escapement goal in the Q???

Tribe wants it lower?

Any thought that much lower returns than the norm might be due to this fact? Salmon seem to be doing okay, but ...

I don't know if there is disagreement on the escapement goal. Perhaps there is disagreement on the in-river management approach? The coastal tribes seem to advocate a harvest rate approach to terminal (i.e., in-river) fisheries management, while the WDFW folks seem to advocate what is referred to as a "fixed point" escapement goal. Both approaches have their risks. However, while the Queets steelhead escapements have fluctuated, the health of the population over the last 20-30 years has been quite good... like many of the coastal populations.

I guess my point is, it's hard to argue with success. The Queets is a great example of effort put into assessing the populations, (salmon and steelhead... adults and juveniles) and then using that information to manage the resource. This is adaptive management (in the fisheries world) at it best).

PCNW

Management at its best?

Tell that to the people that fished those rivers back in the 50's, 60's and 70's.

Things are a mere shadow of what they were.

My grandpa worked in logging camps out on the Sol Duc, Hoh and Queets back in the 40's and 50's and did a good bit of fishing for all species.

My dad caught the tail end of the good old days in the 60's and early 70's.

Mere fragments only exist of what was out there and what we had.

I could go on and on about what things were like from the first hand accounts I have heard but that would be pointless.

If you want the truth of "managemant at its best" why dont you talk to some of those guys that lived and worked out there in the 30's, 40's and 50's. They can tell you about what it was like before the Boldt decision and the hatcherys.

They can tell you about the Native steelhead in October and November that were once very plentiful. They can tell you about the spring chinook that were comming out your ears on the Queets and Hoh as well as the Quileute system.

How bout Goodman Creek when the Mainline was first punched in before they started planting any hatchery fish?

Everything is based on numbers from the 70's and 80's when all the damage was already done and the runs were decimated.

What about the Hamma, Skoke, Duckabush and Dose of the 30's and 40's how bout the Dungeness humpies?

What about the in river spawning Sockey of the Queets, how many Sockey historically were in the Quinault before the cannery in the 20's.

Amen RichG! Read the amazing stories about what the Skagit once was. Stories of loggers riding rafts of logs, untying them to find black clouds of Chinook hiding under them in the 40's. It just about makes me sick to think of what we've done to our runs.

There is MUCH to consider when we look at the [now] depleted runs of fish in all of our rivers.

There are many more people fishing those rivers today; likely a logarithmic increase per decade.

Environmental factors - chemicals in use today that never existed in the 40's, 50's. Also, the loss of foilage along those rivers from the efforts of those loggers, not to mention the soil erosion and silting in of a number of rivers and at various times.

Judge Boldt made his decision, I would want to believe, on what he felt were the legal merits of the case...not how many fish were in the rivers. No matter...it too had a monumental effect on these populations of fish....likely the biggest factor, but not the only one.

I HATE GILLNETS....no matter Native or non-Native Commercial. We need to OUTLAW them completely. There are other ways to harvest commercial catches...much more selective. (And yes, I know they are no where near as effecient...and that is fine by me...but then...who am I?)

When I first came on this forum, I was pretty outspoken about the Native fisheries, and voiced some opinions that were unpopular. I have not mellowed in my zeal, but learned, studied, and used some common sense.

I don't think it's right for the punishments for the sins of our great grandfathers to be passed on to us...likewise, let us not blindly pass on to the Native peoples the punishments (or blame) for the non-Natives responsibilities in the decline of the fisheries.

Mike B

I'll second that Rich G., I have fished the Queets and other Olympic penninsula rivers for nearly 45 years and when I hear the fisheries managers beating there chest about what a wonderful job they are doing on those rivers it makes me sick.

Proof is in the pudding. My friends and I have been, for quite a few years now, do the "you guys go ahead and fish the Queets and we'll be there later", but end up fishing another river like the Humps, Satsop, or Nooch. Then later hook-up at the tav and compare notes for the day.

Either we kick their a$$ in the numbers landed or size of fish. Once in a while we'll all hit the Queets, but never fails, just not happenin so then we take off to another river and the fishings great but not enough daylite left. Then its that I told you so thing....

To make a long story short, It just aint like it ustabe! Course then again guess same with all the rivers now days.....just my $0.25 worth.

Robert

Over harvest is why there are very few spring Chinook left in the Queets.
Over harvest is the problem for steelhead as the water shed is not polluted or clear cut.
1977-76 total run 7,196 sport harvest 133 tribal harvest 2,856
1982-83 total run 7,063 sport harvest 650 tribal harvest 2,748
1990-91 total run 8,202 sport harvest 260 tribal harvest 2,748
1997-98 total run 4,856 sport harvest 52 tribal harvest 1,184

I have been told the State wants an escapement of 4,600 and the tribe wants 2500 to
Allow them more harvest. To protect the fish an escapement goal must be set so the tribe can be held to there 50%. As it stands the tribe is taking way more than there 50% and
This over harvest must stop.

I totally agree with Rich G.

Pretty much every river in the state has gone bad. The Skagit, Sky, Cowlitz, various OP rivers, and on and on. The fact of the matter is this: If we take the nets out(both indian and non-indian) we will have fish. Its not the dams or the logging now days that are depleting our runs, its the nets. Logging practices years ago may have played a little of the decline of the fish runs, but now logging practices are very conservative around rivers and streams. Until the nets are gone we won't have good fishing.

Y'all are right, the Queets is toast, don't go there. The Wynooche, Satsop, Hump, Bogey etc. are all much better rivers.... I don't like nets either, but the fact is I've fished the Queets since the early 60s and my best day ever there was two years ago in March. The trick is fishing it during the right conditions, which can be tough since the river tends to go out after a sneeze.

IMHO,

Nets are evil and the first step towards helping the runs would be to pull them or have a much better monitored, limited commercial harvest. That would especially help the rivers in which they are the primary factor in decimating the runs. In the more pristine systems, of course.

But just pulling the nets is not enough, salmon are an indicator organism about the health of the environment. We ALL need to support any legislation aimed at protecting the environment. A growth based economy must learn to sustain itself without pollution.

Overpopulation is a fact that will not change. It drives all of this controversy. I got over it years ago when I started to see people pour into this state. Many of my favorite hunting and fishing spots overrun or developed. I used to get angry but you might as well get mad at the weather for all the good it does you.

If we could limit ourselves to 2-3 kids (if we are able to adequately support them) , and not be afraid to put a lid on immigration, maybe we can manage it.

Amen RichG.Good luck,
STRIKE ZONE

How can our management be sucessful if we have hundreds of miles of spawning habitat in our rivers not being utilized?

Look at a drainage the size of the queets and look at how many fish there are anyone can see that there is somthing wrong.

Do we have any idea what carrying capacity is in any of our rivers specifically on the OP?

How can we manage our rivers on data obtained when the runs had already been decimated and then claim that we are managing the watersheds successfully?

I know that there has been some studys done on how much of the available habitat is being utilized on the Quileute system but I dont know where it is or how to find it. I remember seeing that back in the 70's it was estimated only 25% of prime spawning habitat was being utilized.

Rich,

Don’t confuse habitat management with fish management. Much of the Queets system habitat has been nuked: the entire Clearwater sub-basin and the Queets tributaries from Sams River downstream. The pristine habitat is limited to the Queets and its tributaries upstream from Sams River.

The percent utilization of spawning habitat or potential spawning habitat has little to do with carrying capacity for chinook, coho, and steelhead. That parameter is only possibly relevant to species that are not stream rearing obligates like pink, chum, and most sockeye.

The unanswered question is whether the contemporary productivity and capacity of the Queets system is being utilized. It’s still considered one of the more productive systems for its size in the state, even if it’s much reduced from historic levels. But then, no river seems to be producing at historic levels. And to the extent that the Queets is managed for MSY/MSH, then it isn’t being managed for its productive potential. Perhaps it is at its maximum sustainable harvest level, tho.

I kind of agree with Stam; healthy runs continue to exist on OP rivers largely because they are not fishable with either gillnets or sport gear during much of the season when fish are running, and because most have headwaters protected in the national park.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Head Hunter and Rich you guys are right on

KB has it nailed.....PacificNW is somewhat knowledgeable but is also a mouthpiece and apologist for the tribes...they can do no wrong and so on.....

The tribes have gut shot the Queets as they have most other rivers. They rape the resource year after year and if they manage a fishery it is for their own benefit with no regard to anything or anyone else. The proof is all around us and things have gotten progressively worse since Boldt....Today the tribes merely thumb their noses at WDFW and the rest of us fools who let them get away with murder.

It seems the tribes and state have tried to ignore the fact that a large element of the runs are pretty much gone and I dont see how you can say runs are healthy and management has been successful when this is the case.

Back in the 60's and early 70's the upper Bogie above 101 was the top choice for my dad and some of his friends. Fishing started to be worth while for nates about the second week of November peaking about Christmas, then it started to taper off throughout January. About the start of Feb another substantial push of fish came in twards the end of Feb it was mostly spawners with a few new fish. Then they started to head down river to find new fish.

Those fish that came in Nov and Dec Moved on through up to the headwaters while the Feb fish filled in the mid section above 101 where they staged to spawn.

Now it seems you get a few fish in Jan up there barely enough to fish for. In mid Feb you get a decent push in the first freshet but if you miss it its gone. In march some fish trickle in up there and stage to spawn. Thats the whole show inconsistant at best...

Those late fish have tried to go up there as the area isnt really being utilized by the early fish that once were.

THe Sol Duc and Clawah seem to have hung on a little better for the early ones why im not sure.

So all in all, the article in STS pretty much makes this river sound like its made in heaven when in fact both state and tribe have differences about what the escapement should be.

Does this make it a bad river to fish? probably not. Are there better places for higher % of fish to target for? yeah.

Guess they figure this river doesn't get too much notariety and tribes can get away with it, and try to pump out more fish on the more popular rivers for sports harvest so no one will be the wiser.......

Robert

Rich - Yes, fisheries management at its best. I will allow I should have added the term "present day" fisheries management or "past 30 years" or something to that effect. Don't confuse marine survival conditions and habitat conditions with fisheries management. Your reference to the 50's, 60's and 70's speaks only to abundance, I am guessing... fisheries management prior to the 70's was not what anyone would call intensive, adaptive or necessarily effective. All they had to work with in those days was harvest data. You are also talking about a time when the logging was just hitting the valley (50's) and just hitting the Clearwater (60's) and then the steeper slopes of the Salmon, Matheny and Sams basins (70's). So, you are correct... going on and on with comparisons of what abundance was like in times of high marine survival and relatively good habitat conditions and comparing them to the past 20-30 years IS pointless... I actually agree with you. Spring chinook in the Queets and Quillayute systems were never the population sizes they were, say, in the Hoh. Nor were they ever as abundant as the fall component of the run. If they were, the catch data would support your statement. Everything is based on numbers starting with the 70's becasue that is when intensive (read present day) management began. That is when the spawning survey data became collected in a systematic manner enabling estimates of spawning populations. That is when juvenile trapping efforts began that allowed insight into the productivity of the natural populations and the freshwater habitat. Age data was collected, coded wire tag grouprs were released. The UW was initiating multiple research studies on the streams and populations under State timber land jurisdiction in the Clearwater. The 70's were when managers began to develop present day databases. What about "the Hamma, Skoke, Duckabush and Dose of the 30's and 40's how bout the Dungeness humpies"??? Shall I repeat myself? Same story.

Strawberry - Beating chests? Hmmm. Don't think so. Just making the point that with present day management tools, the Queets is an example of the best. The Kalama is in there as well. If you don't like the results, that is a different issue. Management-wise there are few examples where it is better.

Gone Fishing - There was never a huge run of spring Chinook in the Queets. Again, if there were, the harvest records would show it. As for differences between the State and the Tribe, the issue is not that simple. I am pretty sure the Tribe supports a harvest rate approach which would result in a variable escapement while the State is advocating for a fixed escapement goal.

Goinfishin - I agree with you. As americans we are a small group of humans utilizing a big chunk of the world's resources. Other populations want to be just like us. There are about 1.3 billion Chinese that are gearing up their productivity and their commerce to do just that.... not to mention the 1 billion people in India. Lets see what we can do to lead the way in conservation of our natural resources and not consumerism, eh? Maybe they will want to emmulate us that way as well?

stam - Yes, you are entitled to your opinion. I just ask that you to look at what has happened the last 30 years. If the present day management were so awful we would be without any fish. Yes, things were looking bleak in the 90's for coho. Today they are looking much better. They were looking bleak in the early 80's for chinook. The late 80's and early 90's were robust years of escapement for Queets fall Chinook (for example). Unfortunately, high levels of escapement does not necessarily equal big run sizes 4 and 5 years later. Management must account for fluctuations in productivity and survival. That is what is happening today. In the past the steelhead runs have been below average for a give period of years. They have bounced back. They may again be in a period of low survival. Most fisheries managers expect this to shift to a trend of improving survival in the future.

Rich - I was not aware that there was any spawning habitat in the Queets that was not being utilized. Who's data is this?

Grandpa - Leave it to you for the "personal" comments. I feel fortunate to be labeled as somewhat knowledgable by you... makes me fell warm and fuzzy all over. As to your other comments, they simply do not make sense and the data does not support them.

bigfish - Please remember that not too much of the Queets system is under WDFW fishieries jurisdiction. The Park has its own policies and management philosophies and they do not mesh well with the Tribe's which are centered around harvesting (both commercial and sport) the hatchery coho and hatchery steelhead returns that are produced from their Salmon River facility. The Tribe is also heavily involved in supplementing the wild coho and Chinook populations in the Queets and studying the productivity and survival of naturally produced salmonids. Very few river systems are as well studied or as intensively managed as the Queets... which I think is the original point I was trying to make.

From the WSC Fact Sheet:
Sources: WDFW and NOAA Fisheries

* For the past few years, the Pysht, Quinault, Hoh, Queets, Dickey, Sol Duc, Quillayute, Calawah and Bogachiel River total runs and escapements have all been in a downward trend from their recent peak run-size returns.

* The Queets River has been managed for spawners below its desired WDFW escapement for the last 10 years due to tribal demands.

Here's the data on the Queets:

What say you PNW? Are the tribes innocent again?

amen stam...now only if we can get the tribe to agree with that..... :rolleyes:

It seems the broad brush is swinging again. I believe the WSC "fact sheet" refers to natural steelhead runs and escapements (it helps to be precise in these matters). It would seem, from an examination of the naturally produced steelhead run size data, that the coastal streams are in a down swing. Again, this has happened before, as have the up swings. Expect these swings to continue. Meanwhile, we are in an up swing for salmon on the coastal systems. This is often the case where steelhead cycles are out of synch with the salmon cycles. So is it time to list these steelhead populations on the endangered species list? Probably not.

So who's right??? The "desired" WDFW escapement goal (which has worked so well on other rivers with other steelhead populations) or the Tribal harvest rate approach??? If I am not mistaken, there is a large contingent on this site that is opposed to the fixed point escapement approach used by WDFW, am I right? But heaven forbid a Tribe dare to be different and think outside the box. Give it a chance.

wildfishlover - There always has to be someone to blame, eh?

stam - I think I already made the point that large escapements, which might occur in the short term once the "nets were pulled" will not necessarliy equate to "runs growing."

PCNW,

So are you saying that the early fish that are gone is directly related to Ocean survival and Habitit.

Seems to me that it is directly related to The Boldt Decision and increased hatchery plants in the early season.

Those early fish were a big part of the run and for the most part used the headwaters and small tribs for spawning. Those areas are mostly within the park and are now not being utilized nearly as much.

Why is the early component subject constantly scooted around? Why is this a numbers game when it comes to management?

A true sign of health is diversity and thats what is being lost.

Now we have a whole bunch of fish that come in at the same time and utilize one general area for spawning. Is that healthy?

We dont even know how many fish there were or what run timing was or what each component played to ensure survival of the species for each chain of events played by nature in any given year.

Steelheads survival is based on diversity not on numbers.

In 2003 the escapment for Queets river spring chinook was 184 fish and the clearwater was 10 fish, the estimated run size for this last spring (2004) was 438 fish, the minimum escapment goal is 700 fish, the Queets run is considerd depressed and the Clearwater run is listed as critical, now with the spring run in that condition why did the Quinault tribe set a 2 day per week 12 hour per day season from May 5th thru June 24th on the Queets river.

I think you just answered the question about the state's and tribes idea of good management.

If it dosent make sense than its good if it makes sense then lets change it to somthing that dosent.

The best part is that management is done on pre season forcasts that are gueses.

To add to what Rich G said;

The preseason guesses are never right and are always too high; allowing the indians to net the hell out the rivers; resulting in the sports fishermen getting screwed.


PCNW;
I just don't get it. You talk all you want about habitat, ocean survival, and so on, but it just doesn't matter if the fish can't make it up the rivers to spawn due to the nets.

First off, lets worry about getting the fish up the rivers(this would be by pulling the nets). Without fish any in the river to spawn in the first place, how can the run grow? Once we have decent numbers of fish returning to spawn then we can concentrate on habitat loss and whatever else you feel you need to blame.

Because they can is the short answer. And because the could care less about anything but exploiting the resource every chance they get. Sugar coat it all you want but those of us who have eyes can see.

"First off, lets worry about getting the fish up the rivers(this would be by pulling the nets)"

Got a plan for that? Seriously....what are you gonna do, sue them? If you really think the Quillayutes or Hoh's are going to voluntarily pull their nets for any other reasons than 'the fish are gone' or 'water's too high', you've got another coming.

Anyone ever see 'Mystery Men'? Whenever I hear someone crying 'Pull the nets, pull the nets!' I always think of Ben Stiller's character 'Mr. Furious'....

OK, just catching up on this topic after a couple days...

Rich - Yes, directly related but, obviously, also related to the introduction of early timed hatchery steelhead which is the portion of the run that sustains the high harvest rate that so many tribal and non-tribal fishers demand. I am not sure it is directly related to the Boldt decision as the diminishment of the early timed wild run steelhead was well along in most PS systems prior to 1974. As to your statement, "Steelheads survival is based on diversity not on numbers" I think you are partly correct. Survival is dependent on abundance (numbers), productivity, capacity and on a number of other factors... genetic diversity is certainly among these.

strawberry - The Queets spring chinook run has been returning at fairly low levels of abundance for decades. The sound management of this run has included documentation of this fact for at least 3 decades. However, there was one spawning year, 1984, that produced a significant increase in adult returns as 3 years olds in 1987, 4's in 1988 and 5's in 1989. There was also a good showing of 6's and 7's from this brood year. The spawning populations from 1987, 1988 and 1989 were, for the Queets spring Chinook population, quite large. However, this is one of the best examples of less than successful returns per spawner (i.e., the returns from these spawning years were way down again).... even when the majority of these fish were born and raised in the relatively pristine conditions of the upper Queets. As for recent year run sizes, obviously those population sizes do not support harvest... so there should not be any... in the river or in the ocean.

head hunter - You are wrong. The pre-season run size forecasts for Queets spring Chinook have been darn good (except for those three years where the returns were much higher). That does not change the fact that there are not enough fish returning to support a directed harvest. And as I have explained, even when there are fairly abundant spawners in some of the most pristine waters of the region, this is still no guarantee of increasing run sizes.

grandpa - You are wrong. Obviously there is a conservation concern for Queets Chinook. In order for the Tribe to have any harvest under these conditions there must be agreement in the management plan. The Tribe cannot just fish "because they can." Also, if what you say is correct, "because they could care less about anything but exploiting the resource every chance they get" then, by inference, there would be no resource left to exploit, now would there??? I am not privy to the elements of the agreement so it is difficult to know how many Chinook were allowed to be harvested in river.

h20 & stam - Who is defending the nets? My point was that Queets River populations are closely studied and the joint management that is employed by the Tribe and the State is very good because it is based on science. Isn't that what many of you keep saying? We need to use good data in managing our fisheries? Well it is being done on this system. You still may be against the use of nets and agree with the notion that good science is behind management in this system. However, harvest is harvest.... a dead fish is a dead fish whether caught on the end of a troll line in the ocean, caught in a gillnet or caught on a hook.

Finally, I want to wish all of you on this board a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

PNW, there's really not a right or wrong here, but, when it comes to numbers on paper, and sure salmon is on the rise, but, steelies on the decline, does that mean to up the limits? You've mentioned that sure that there is a down swing again, but remember that there is an upswing also to that so it goes both ways. Just avrg. is what should be looked at. Glad to have you on this BB cause without input like yours, it just wouldn't get me to thinkin' and I'd take fishin' for granted....

Robert

a dead fish is a dead fish whether caught on the end of a troll line in the ocean, caught in a gillnet or caught on a hook.

That is a true statement, but how contrary to say this when I fish with one hook compared to hundreds of feet of gillnet. How many fish at one time can a net kill compared to my "ONE" hook?. To compare the two is like saying that the WDFW is studying the situation to make things equitable, or like saying that G.W. is part of the intelligence community. It does sound like you are making an equal comparison between the two and that dog just won't hunt, not here.