Washington Fly Fishing Forum banner

yes or no to hatchery steelhead

7K views 77 replies 33 participants last post by  AnglerontheFly 
#1 ·
As many of you know last Saturday the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission took testimony on WDFW's Statewide Steelhead Management Plan (SSMP). It was gratifying to see so many passionate folks taking the time from other important activities to provide input in what will likely serve as the "road map" for steelhead mangement in this State for decades to come.

While I did not "keep score" it seemed to me that the majority of the folks that provided tesimtony were concern about the impacts hatchery fish were having on the wild populations and called for changes in hatchrey programs with the most common comment being calling for the elimination of the planting of hatchery steelhead.

Certainly hatchery steelhead have become an significnat factor in both steelhead fisheries and management in this State. Our rivers without hatchery steelhead would be a different world.

After thinking about the various testimony for a couple days I'm wondering what others here may think about this issue and what you see as the role of hatchery fish in our fisheries (if any) and what changes you would like to see/recommend.

Tight lines
Curt
 
See less See more
#40 ·
All hatcheries producing anadromous fish on rivers with enough habitat to sustain a wild steelhead population should be closed within the year. The money alloted to these hatchery programs needs to be spent on restoring each system to increase wild survivability and spawning habitat.

I would love to never kill another hatchery fish, if only they weren't around...
 
#42 ·
Curt- I want the opportunity to fish, period. I might be wrong, but if we do away with hatcheries wouldnt our opportunities go down as well? Arent the hatchery fish counted as part of the impact when considering ESA listings impacts?There is nothing pretty than a March or April wild steelhead, but when was the last time we could fish the Snohomish system March or April? The Snoho system has been closed, has it made a difference in the return rate of adults? And what are the chances with the way things are going that it would be viable enough to allow fishing again during that time?

Again I want opportunity, if I wanted to take part in a non-impact sport I would take up bird watching.. So I am all for hatchery fish the more the better. More fish provides more opportunity.
 
#51 ·
Curt- I want the opportunity to fish, period. I might be wrong, but if we do away with hatcheries wouldnt our opportunities go down as well? Arent the hatchery fish counted as part of the impact when considering ESA listings impacts?There is nothing pretty than a March or April wild steelhead, but when was the last time we could fish the Snohomish system March or April? The Snoho system has been closed, has it made a difference in the return rate of adults? And what are the chances with the way things are going that it would be viable enough to allow fishing again during that time?

Again I want opportunity, if I wanted to take part in a non-impact sport I would take up bird watching.. So I am all for hatchery fish the more the better. More fish provides more opportunity.
a perfect example of one who cares more about "opportunity" than wild fish.

what i read is "if i cannot fish, what is the point? hatcheries equal opportunity so plant more, more, more"

face it, for 99% of the fishing community wild fish are a nuisance that get in the way of hatchery fishing opportunity.... and that is why wild fish recovery is likely a pipe dream.
 
#44 ·
jb,

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not advocating for continuing the summer hatchery plants in the Stilly and would be very comfortable with curtailing the winter steelhead hatchery plants in it, provided selective gear rules are put in place. But there are a lot of folks from Seattle to Bellingham who do fish it for the hatchery brats in summer and for winter brats from December to February. I rarely fish above Oso so not having summer runs above Oso wouldn't bother me; however, there are a lot of fly fishers from Bellingham to Seattle who get started fishing for steelhead by going after the hatchery fish on the Stilly.

As I've said before, this question isn't as cut and dried as it appears on the surface.
 
#46 ·
I know. I was just pointing out that olde tymers I have talked to remember fondly the days when there was a steelhead in every tailout of the Stilly all the way above Fortson and further. The Stilly is so well known for its Deer Creek fish that I think everything else gets overlooked. It is just a DAMN GOOD STREAM. I actually think the Stilly has the best shot at recovering of any around here.....Maybe I am dreaming but it seems to have gotten better in recent years....for me anyway.
 
#47 ·
I cannot see how we can have a steelhead fishery if we do not continue to have some hatchery support in desginated rivers. There should though be some rivers that are protected and that should not be planted at all. The natives should then be watched carefully be both biologists and Fishery Patrol folks (of whom we are woefully wanting).

Having said that some hatchery support will be needed if there is to be any hope of a continued steelhead fishery I am concerned that with a highly comprehensive Steelhead Management Plan that it could go south at any time. There is documented data going back at least to the 1960s that there have been probems more than once.This information probably still exists going back all the way to the old WDG records.
A case in point is the steelhead crash of the late 1960s the WDG thought the problem occured at sea as the stock they'd released was supposed to be "the healthiest in years." Dr. Max Katz of the U of W School of Fisheries differed, telling the membership of the old Washington Steelhead Trout Club that "the steelhead loss had been experienced almost entirely in freshwater due to a parasitic problemin the rearing ponds and hatcheries."
If hatcheries are to be continued, we had better be sure that a good steelhead management plan is agreed upon and followed.
Furthermore as I've said before, we had better not let Jim Buck write a steelhead management plan. He has no credentials in science and has never in my experience come down on the side of conservation. It would really be letting the fox into the henhouse.
Good Fishing,
Les
 
#53 ·
Hatchery steelhead have been very bad for wild steelhead on many levels. They have displaced the wild steelhead from their migratory patterns and timing. They have competed with wild steelhead for forage and habitat. They have altered the natural selection process and genetic composition of wild steelhead. The state has dumped them into the waters as an idiotic public entertainment for so long, and in so many numbers, that many people now feel that the fish are owed to them. And this has made people take wild steelhead for granted. I think that WDFW should eliminate anadromous hatchery fish programs and get busy with wild habitat restoration and preservation and wild fish protections.
 
#55 ·
steve, i understand what you are saying and agree to some degree. my point is that supporting hatcheries is about fishing opportunity and has nothing to do with wild fish conservation.

yes, the cowlitz is unique in placement of the dams and the history of hatchery abuses in the system. ask yourself though, if there was no hatchery supplementation, would wild fish recovery be easier or harder? hatcheries allow the dam owners to do nothing to alleviate the root cause of the decline. hatcheries allow the dam owners to join forces with the people who should fight them, sportfishermen, and fool them into supporting the destruction of the fishery through historically high harvest rates and massive competition from hatchery fish.

the idea of giving up on river systems and their wild fish is not one i like... and it doesn't help the tributaries you mentioned such as the toutle. why should the toutle wild fish have to compete with cowlitz hatchery smolts and strays? plus the negative impact lower columbia salmon hatcheries have on wild salmon stocks due to increased harvest and by-catch levels on endangered and threatened wild fish. we know the impact salmon carcasses have on the health of rivers, and increasing salmon escapements would no doubt have a positive impact on wild steelhead.

hell, i get the "fishing opportunity" argument. it was one i made for years and supported in the north of falcon process when i ran a charter at neah bay. i knew that the process was flawed and we were killing endangered and depressed stocks of chinook and coho salmon, but my lust for the fishing overrode my heart and conscious. it is much easier for me now that i'm outside of the industry.

i know that hatcheries are going to be a part of washington fishing forever, but i think honest dialogue about their real impacts is important. i believe the science is clear about hatcheries impacts both past and present, and it isn't positive.

i know the cowlitz is screwed when it comes to wild fish and that hatcheries are not going anywhere. but i think the debate can push people into wondering why we have hatcheries on every river system. if we can push the debate then maybe we can rid certain rivers of hatcheries and hatchery plants. wild fish recovery on relatively healthy river systems is impossible with the increased harvest rates and competition that hatcheries create (and some hatcheries actually destroy habitat). while steelhead are the main focus of this thread, lets not forget the negative impact salmon hatcheries can have on not only wild salmon, but wild steelhead.

but i do believe that supporting hatcheries is really about supporting fishing opportunity, and that support of hatcheries cannot honestly go together with support of wild fish.
 
#56 ·
I don't agree with Topwater that being for hatchery steelhead means you're against wild steelhead recovery.

There's a long history in WA of hatchery mismanagement. Much of what was considered "best science" a couple generations ago has been refuted. Hatcheries will not replace wild fish production, and should NEVER be considered a substitute.

But just because hatchery management has been indiscriminate in the past doesn't convince me that it's not possible to have responsible hatcheries create fisheries where none would exist otherwise.

As Smalma has pointed out before, the hatchery smolt/adult impact on wild fish is mostly dependant on hatchery management practices and varies from river to river.

IF a hatchery can be operated without significant interaction/impact on existing wild steelhead runs (or if no intact wild stocks other than hatchery strays remain as would seem to be the case on the upper Cowlitz), I see no problem with them.

If it is difficult/impossible to segregate the populations, then the wild runs should be deferred to every time.

IMO the bar should be set much higher for proving that a given hatchery will not negatively impact existing stocks (like the wild summer and winter runs in the SF Toutle).

They have a place, but a MUCH smaller place that was originally envisioned when hatcheries were offered as mitigation for dam-induced destruction of our native steelhead stocks.

Just my .02,

Brian
 
#57 ·
From what I understand the fish culturists convinced the powers that were they could produce more and better to allow for the absolute gross overharvest of stocks for canning purposes. This little tidbit is what also played the role in setting the legal precedence (on obviously false presumptions) that the rivers could be developed and there would be plenty of fish for the commercial catch. Sport angling had no hand in this nice arrangement of times past. And now we are stuck with the idea that fishing doesn't exist without them.

William
 
#58 ·
every place where hatchery steelhead plants are ceased wild runs rebound quickly and strongly..

the best thing you can do for wild steelhead runs you want to restore is eliminate hatchery plants..

Hatchery steelhead have NO ROLE WHATSOEVER in wild fish restoration. NONE!
 
#59 ·
Thanks guy for a very civil and informatiive discussion - this an example of the internet forums at their best.

Lots of valid points and thoughts. I think it is pretty clear that there is a variety of opinions and thoughts on this issue and as with most matters in the fisheries management world there is no black and white answers. So of these issues are as much a social one as biological. As Steve and others pointed out one's answer would depend on which system is under discussion. The major limiting factors vary from basin to basin and as a result the focus on what will produce more wild fish will vary.

To some specific questions/corrctions -

Jbuehler -
Regarding wild summer steelhead above Deer Creek on the NF Stilaguamish. While occassionally one sees the odd Deer Creek fish pull upstream of the Creek they usually don't go very far - just looking for cooler waters. Above Deer Creek there is not any water that one would call wild summer run water - wild winter fish are much more adapted to those habitats.

The vast majority of wild steelhead caught above Deer Creek during the summer that I have seen or seen picture of have been winter fish, usually kelts or very late spawners.

Coach -
Regarding wild versus native fish. That whole issue is somewhat of a red herring. Our steelhead are a very adaptive fish quickly changing as their habitats change. Clearly our rivers are much different than they were 200 years ago and one would expect that the steelhead would also be somewhat different.

I think the critical issue here is more aobut whether the existing wild populations are as productive as they can be in the habitats that they have than about specific genetic markers they have.

Goose -
I agree that estuarian habitat is a major need however that restoration will have very little impact on the overall wild steelhead production. Steelhead juveniles spend virtually no time rearing there. Typcially they spend just a hand ful of days in that habitat as they leave the system as smolt on their way to the salt.

Restoration of estuaries is hugely important for Chinook whose juvenles can spend weeks rearing in such areas and as a result the capacity of the basin is greatly influence by the amount and quality of its estuary. Obvious estuaries are also important forgaing areas for crittes like cutthroat and char.

Jeremy -
Almost immediately afer Boldt the State attempted to limit the tribal fishery arguing that steelhead were a state game fish and the sell of those fish should not be allowed. As I recall the issue when to the 9th Circuit Court where the court decided that the tribes could indeed catch and sell those fish - they said ineffect that banning the sell of those fish was the same as the limiting their treaty rights and not support by intent of the treaties.

Rob Allen -
I'm familar with several examples where ending hatchery planting paid dividents for the wild fish (the Wind immediately comes to mind. However it is not true that in every case ending hatchery planting resulted in increased numbers of wild steelhead. In the Puget Sound region ending the planitng of steelhead in the early 1990s to date has not resulted in increased wild fish. In fact if any thing the plight of the steelhead thsoe basins have gotten worse. Leads me to believe that other factors must be largely responsible for limiting those wild populations.

Just once again illustrating that our steelhead are under attack by diverse and complex factors and there are rarely simple universal answers.

Tight lines
Curt
 
#61 ·
gt -
Fair enough!

I purposely held off posting my thoughts on this issue until other folks had a chance to have there say but since you asked here are some of my thoughts which I'm sure will not surprise many.

Frist I don't see this as a black and white issue and have different takes depending on the basin and hatchery stock being considered. It is also clear that we as a society have bought into hatcheries as part of the landscape and I don't see that changing much in the short term. I see the trick is controlling the adverse impacts to levels which keep risks at acceptable levels (what may be a comfortable risk to me may not be to another) while providing fishing opportunites on those hatchery fish.

Generally I prefer segregated hatchery programs over integrated ones for harvest supplementation. In regards to winter fish (Chamber's stock) I have little problem with the current programs on most Puget Sound rivers in regard to impacts on the wild resource. The wild and hatchery stocks are virtually completely separated in spawning time so there is little chance for interactions on the spawning grounds and the spring/summer hydro graphs are such that the snow melt run-off does not end until after any fry from natural spawning hatchery fish have hatchery which puts them at great disadvantage.

That said there are obvious interaction problems in many of the coastal streams where the early spawning of the wild fish provide over-lap with the hatchery fish/ On many fo the smaller streams (for example the Hoko) those concerns are more than enough to terminate those Chamber's Creek programs. On others additional efforts needed to be continued to further the isolation between the hatchery and wild fish.

Suspect that things are similar in SW Washington as on the coast.

On the whole I have large issues with integrated programs. The most weakness in that approach with steelhead is the extreme difficulty in getting an adequate cross section of the wild population in the brood stock to have a truly representative brood stock. Without a representative brood stock having a integrated program is impossbile.

That said in some areas a integrated attempt may still be the best approach; at least until other unlying factors limiting wild production can be corrected. A classic example would be the upper Columbia populations. Currently those populations are so limited by habitat problems (dams and water issues) that there is little hope in sustaining the wild population without hatchery enhancement. Because of the ability to collect brood stock at the dams and advance the spawning time by using warmer water over a extend period (not possible on the coast due to the smaller difference between run and spanwing timing with winter fish) the brood stock is more representative; though still less than an ideal match. But what other choice is there until some habitat is restored.

In areas with Tribal fisheries integrated programs cause additional complicities to management that almost always either significant limit the size of the hatchery program to very low level or put undo risks on the wild populations.

I see the coastal summer run hatchery program as much poor isloated progam than the winter. Also given their demostrated ability to at least occassional successful establish population I would favor eliminating those programs. If we must have a summer program there clearly needs to be additional efforts to advacne that stock's spawning time to insure a complete separation from wild stocks as well as making them completely out-of-sync with the river system. To do the goal should be to end brood stock spawning by Xmas.

Clearly mitigation programs have there own set of needs and problems and we are likely locked into have those programs at least continuing at some level. That of course does not preclude looking for areas of improvement.

I don't see competition/predation by hatchery smolts as a large issue; especially if smolt quality guidelines are followed.

Residual smolts and those surviving fry from natural spawning segregated hatchery parents do present risks that have not been adequately addressed. May be the best way to provide protection from those fish is to have a large robust wild populations. The increased competition would maximize the selection against those poorly adapted hatchery origin fish. In that line it seems reasonable to be to argue for larger escapement goals (above MSH levels) to insure higher seeding of habitats which in turn insure higher selective pressure for success wild types.

While I could provide more indepth thoughts I think the above should serve as an basic over-view of my thinking. There are a variety of potential "tweaks" to any of the above to fit the special situations that may be found on individual bains. Equally I suspect that I have step on most folks toes by now in one way or another!

Tight lines
Curt
 
#64 ·
just a couple of thoughts.

what has become obvious, over time, is that genetic diversity is key to survival. so how does that translate into what we observe?

fish return in a 'normal' but steep curve, to their natal rivers. that allows wander of some fish to other nearby drainages. so while 90% may select the drainage from which they came, that 10% will distribute north and south of that natal river. that simple genetic fact allows for one river system to be devistated via flood or drought and the fish strain to survive.

now while we may release all of the hatchery steelhead on wednesday and expect the majority to return in 12 months between monday and friday, wild steelhead perform differently. it should come as no surprise to find wild steelhead wandering back over the span of months. again, a genetic diversity in a strain allowing for drought or flood while the strain survives.

the notion that interaction of hatchery and wild steelhead is minimal because of the calendar is more than likely a false assumption. again, genetic diversity has programmed individual fish to seek individual return times. over the eons that has also served to preserve the species from natural occurring events on home rivers.

hatchery steelhead, no matter when that release occurs, have more than likely had a huge negative impact on the very genetic diversity needed to insure wild species survival. unfortunately, chambers stock, as an example, using the 'commonly available time arguement' have most likely totally eliminated a huge portion of that wild stock genetic diversity necessary for survival.

of course, much of what i am posting is nothing more than conjecture as there is zero way, at least in 2008, to actually get a handle on these impacts. but what we do know, and what we can actually observe, is the hatchery mitigation programs which have been running on various river systems, while producing hatchery returns, have also lead to the observation that wild fish are no longer around.

now since groucho is my role model for many psudo scientific conclusions, i do believe my eyes. massive hatchery stocking -> few to no wild steelhead. now you may choose to draw a different conclusion, but for me it is totally obvious.

the hatchery programs have led to the elimination of genetic diversity. and as a result of that, we now see fewer and fewer returning wild steelhead. the thinking that goes on at WDFW as well as ODFW regarding these issues, IMHO, is totally off base, as i view many of your comments smalma, and without merit based on observation, not theory.

so smalma, sorry to say, i cannot agree with your position of hatchery fish not damaging wild stocks. i would argue that the reason you don't see wild fish when the majority of hatchery fish are returning is that those hatchery fish have caused the extinction of an important element of genetic diversity.

could be lots of other factors, i recognize that as well, but here we are, hatchery programs continue at full tilt, wild steelhead continue to decline. linked?? i would think they are, 100%.

solution: on those river systems that have been severly impacted, stock'um and allow put and take harvest. on those river systems that have a hope of wild fish recovery, shutter the hatchery programs and divert those funds to habitat restoration, no fishing for 5 years, period. on any river system negatively impacted by impoundments, stock'um and forget'um. go to federal court and file an injunction against the killing of any fish with and ESA listing by everyone. not even the indians have a 'right' to kill listed fish.

but, as i have posted, all of these poor judgement issues as well as habitat issues have been trumped by global warming. with all of our wild fish now in trouble, the last thing we needed was global warming of our waters. i am afraid that with this 500# gorilla now a reality, these past crappy management practices combined with all of the other factors we can chat about have doomed the cold water fishes to extinction. sad thought but one i am getting used too.
 
#65 ·
Gt -
I guess we can agree to disagree - you asked for my thoughts on the question of hatchery fish -yes or no?

I tried to answer your question as honestly as I could. First let me make it very clear that for myself and the fishing that I enjoy (wild fish in wild rivers) I can do very nicely without hatchery steelhead. However that is not the question.

I don't disagree that the hatchery fish can and do have impacts on wild fish. What I attempted to do and evidently failed was to point out the answer to the above question varied depending on the basin and hatchery program being considered - no simpliest black and white answer. My posiiton was I thought that the risk presented by the segregated programs on North Puget Sound rivers was not such that I was not uncomfortable with those programs and the benefits they provided (fishing opportunities). I when on to state that I had concerns with some of the same segregated programs on the coast and SW Washington primarily due to increased interactions between the hatchery and wild fish on the spawning grounds.

Also indicated that I had some similar concerns with the summer run programs on the west side of the mountains as well as most integrated programs. All and all hardly a ringing blanket endorsement of hatchery fish.

I agree that divesity is a critical factor though I seem to have a different spin on the issue than yours. I'm sure that diversity losses vary considerably from basin to basin with different charcteristics being lost from basin to basin. Though I convince that on the vast majority of our Western Washington streams the most significant diveristy lost has been the resident life histories of O. mykiss in our anadromous streams. That lost has very little to do with hatchery programs and a lot to do wiht management choices.

You touched on a lot of issues and I'm more than willing to discuss each and every one of them if you or so inclined however I feel that such discussions would be much more education for ourselves and the other readers if we focus on specific topics one at a time. Don't know whether continuing those discussions here in this thread or as separate threads. I'll leave that you and/or the other interested readers.

Do you want to start with the diversity question?

Tight lines
Curt
 
#67 ·
thanks for your response, smalma. no need to go any further in this discussion, from my perspective. i was interested in hearing your thoughts, and now i have. needless to say, i disagree with your assumptions and conclusions. i believe the line of thought you have presented is, in large part, a direct cause of our loss of wild steelhead. not you personally, but simply a misguided management philosophy which has ignored the genetic makeup of so many individual stocks of fish.

at this point, i also believe we have crossed a threshold. one where poor decisions, on a number of fronts, have now placed wild steelhead in a 'never' recover position given global warming entering the scene. so with that trumph card on the table, all of this discussion is moot. wild steelhead are a goner and nothing is going to reverse that course in 2008.

groucho was right: '...who you goin'to believe, me our yur own two eyes...', take a look. it's really a sad time in our lives to realize that something which we thought would go on forever is going to disapear before our very eyes.
 
#70 ·
wild steelhead are a goner and nothing is going to reverse that course
:rolleyes:

Wild steelhead will be living somewhere on the planet earth for a VERY long time or I should say, as long as humans are still alive.

By supposedly caring about steelhead, you have educated youself to the point of deciding that they are goners. That is exactly the type of attitude that got us all here in the first place.
 
#68 ·
Gt -
Hope you don't mind but I hope and believe that you are wrong!

Fully agree that we as society have made a mess of most of the steelhead's rivers, our managers have made mistakes, who knows where global warming is going to take things, and we are in an extreme period of poor marine survival all of which have worked to together to put the fish in the fix we find them.

Even so I'm staying in the game continuing to pitch with fingers crossed that we can reverse things through improved understanding of the fish's needs, making tough choices, and yes probably some luck.

Hopefully
Curt
 
#71 ·
no, jbuehler, facing reality is sometimes difficult but necessary. we are 'here' because of poor management decisions by WDFW/ODFW, the fish commission, indians who have netted to extinction several runs of wild fish already, consumerism and a host of very real other man caused problems. with global warming now a reality and the fact that even if we eliminated all harmfull emissions today, it would be a decade before we saw improvement, yes wild steelhead are a goner. cold water fishes need, well, cold water. we are already experiencing a sea temperature rise all along the west coast.

you may want to keep your glass half full, and thats ok by me, but add the facts, look around - put yur groucho eyes on - and you will see that wild steelhead no longer exist in a large number of river systems in this state RIGHT NOW.
 
#73 ·
indians who have netted to extinction several runs of wild fish already . . .
Do you have even one shred of evidence for this? You never seem to pay any attention to the facts about the impact of Indian fishing. Please read King of Fish by David Montgomery if you need a refresher on what got us to this point.
 
#76 ·
o mykiss, can i 'prove' that the indian nets eliminated the wild steelhead from various hood canal rivers?? well of course not, no one can 'prove' anything about any fishery. does it seem 'logical' that unlimited, unregulated fishing following boldt dropped stocks to the point where they could not recover? you bet.

jbuehler, i have lived in the PNW for some 50 decades, by choice. i fished steelhead hard and long for most of those early decades. my ability to hook and kill steelhead is well documented among those i used to fish with. but, i have groucho eyes, and i can clearly see runs of fish disappearing at an alarming rate. did you see the statistics posted in a previous thread?? about 2,800 returning steelhead to the dungness r. this year the hatchery was pleading with local anglers to let them know if anyone landed a buck so they could come and collect the milt for the LONE female at the hatchery.

now you may add that up to '...the runs are not in trouble...', my conclusion is yet another river and another genetically diverse strain is gone. so my solution several years ago, was once again to stop fishing for steelhead entirely. if i hooked a wild steelhead today, i would be scared to death that my ability to be an apex predator would be dooming that very fish. now find me a river with hatchery fish, and almost no probability of a wild fish anywhere in the vicinity, and i will go fish.

i believe all of the past decisions have finally tipped the scale against wild steelhead. this has not occured overnight, mind you, but the downhill slide is accelerating. don't like my opinion??? no worries, seek comfort in your own.
 
#78 ·
Without a reduction in harvest (especially ocean harvest), we will never know what the possibilities are for population increases. We can't just sit here and cry about what has and hasn't been done and how badly humans have screwed up. We have to get off our asses and make some changes. We can plant trees, change seasonal regulations, clean up the pollution, etc all you want (those are good things) but nothing is going to change until we change policy from the top down. Everybody has to get involved, join CCAPNW now and start a wave of change!

There are so many great organizations doing great things out there, but we need to be one big army!

Thanks for the great thread everyone!
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top