Just a note on the Seabird group's letter. They emphasized increased
hatchery output as an alternative. Hatcheries are problematic for several
reasons:

1. they significantly decrease the genetic variability of natural
runs and the loss of genetic information is a substantial problems as the
size of natural runs decrease;
2. they produce fish that are smaller and less hardy than natural
runs;
3. harvests on mixed natural- and hatchery-fisheries is a cause of
the decline of natural populations since commercial fisheries cannot
distinguish between natural and hatchery fish;
etc.

More philosophically, hatchery production has long been used by those who
seek to destroy habitat as a justification for their actions: owners
of dams that block spawning habitat or kill down-stream migrating smolts
"compensate" for the losses by constructing hatcheries. It is part of the
mechanistic belief that we can manipulate nature to produce the variety of
commodities that we desire. A colleague writing about the Forest Service
called this "the conspiracy of optimism" -- the belief in "Yankee
ingenuity" and technology as a way to avoid confronting the actual
trade-offs.

Hatcheries are *not* a solution -- there have been hatcheries in the
region since the late nineteenth century. Their presence and output has
not provided the bounty of fish and electricity that their proponents have
promised. Hatcheries are not a solution -- they are part of the problem.

Dale Goble
Moscow