CFM,

I'll take a shot at a few of your questions.

Endangered means in imminent danger of becoming extinct in the foreseeable future.

Threatend means, well, in imminent danger of become endangered within the foreseeable future.

Those are pretty much the definitions in the ESA.

I hope you weren't actually suggesting that we should go on with business as usual until fish get listed, and then just stop fishing?

The point of aggressive management is to put off the ESA and its draconian restrictions on everything that could possibly happen anywhere near a listed animal or its environment.

*Editorial Comment* Draconian restrictions everywhere except the Columbia where they allow man in its various activities to actively kill upwards of 90% of the spawning adults of several listed animals.**End of Ed. Comment.

They haven't been listed because they are not endangered or threatened on the OP. As noted above, that's certainly no reason to protect them.

You get yourself all twisted in a knot when you consider all the crap going on on the Cowlitz due to the Lower Columbia Steelhead being listed. Wouldn't you have rathered something was done to put off the listing, rather than have to deal with it in the context of the ESA?

Most management flexibility goes away, and so do other opportunities.

The ESA is so last ditch effort to save animals that you can guess that most listed animals will only leave the list after extinction. It's much more helpful to the animals and those who enjoy them to stop the decline of the fish now, while they still can be recovered.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. Don't forget my responses to your questions about mix stock fisheries, among other things...still waiting... :p :p