Here we go down the same rabbit hole - if we just tweak the harvest and hatchery pieces of the 4 "Hs" salmonid recovery will occur and we can continue to fish.

For the vast majority of the ESA listed salmonid population this continued focus on harvest and hatchery issues serve largely to divert the discussions and needed actions from the real drivers in limiting those populations.

Bottom line we have too many people using our river's productivity to produce salmonids for other uses. This compounded by our collectively unwillingness to pay the true price to prioritize the fish needs.

The fate of Puget Sound steelhead illustrates the failure of the strategy of focusing on those hatchery and harvest issues. The majority of the Puget Sound steelhead populations (70%+) have not had any significant fishing or planting of hatchery fish for 3 to 8 generations of wild steelhead. The result fewer steelhead today than at the time of the ESA listing. Could it be hatchery and harvest are not what is driving the status of those steelhead?


fleaflickr02 asks an interesting question. In the mid-1990s the PS comanager made the decision to reduce harvest rates on a number of region's Chinook stocks. As one would expected there was an increase in the numbers of fish reaching the spawning grounds. However in spite of the continuation of those lower harvest rates the populations have continued to decline at the same or potential fast rates; within a few years there were fewer fish than before the harvest reduction. Take home point eliminate harvest will extend the time we will have fish but not the ultimate end point -extinction!

Maybe the most interesting aspect of this discussion is that it seems that many anglers (PSA and others) and many of he tribal leadership are basically say that ESA recovery efforts will not be successful enough to support fishing and hatchery fish are essential. While I can see where they are coming from not sure that in the ESA arena the feds can hop on that train.

Curt