I think the whole thing is a political intra-agency power struggle. The decision is purportedly to protect predation of bull trout in the lower Columbia river (there aren't any to speak of) from possible escape by brown or tiger trout from nunnally and/or lenice. Browns have been in Lenice since the early 90s or earlier and hasn't seemed to have caused a problem yet. Reasonable to consider, at least, that if they were going to cause a problem it likely would have already happened. Even if they got out (difficult to do, considering the watershed but technically possible) and started populating the lower Columbia they can line up next to the millions of non-native bass, carb, and walleye that are firmly and irreversibly entrenched there, and that pose a much more real and present predation threat to native steelhead and bull trout (again that don't exist in that part of the river). Tiger trout are sterile and should therefore not be an ongoing sustained biological threat. Yet we seem to feel good about planting non-native hatchery rainbow stocks that actually could hybridize with steelhead that actually do live in that stretch of the river! I've come to the conclusion that someone is adhering to some fairly irrational dogma to decide to make LESS of a really great fishery for a PURELY hypothetical benefit that no matter what the plausible outcomes would have any affect whatsoever on their stated rationale. THE ONLY THING THAT THIS DOES IS MAKE LESS OF A GREAT FISHERY AND WE GET TO FEEL GOOD (OR LIVID) ABOUT ADHERING TO A PURLEY DOGMATIC DECISION I'll miss the diversity in the fishery.