Well written Bob, alot of people look to you for advice and information, you are a voice for many who sometimes don't know how to "say what they mean...", thanks.

Here, Here, Bob. Thanks.

Ralph,

. . . as in Ralph Waldo Emerson, the existential philosopher? That indeed is the beauty of philosophy. Everyone is a philosopher. Which is not the same as being a problem solver, Ralph. But then, we all need to vent occasionally, as well. If that's the purpose of your post, you might extend the courtesy of indicating so.

Your comparison of Pacific Northwest steelhead with those of Kamchatka is flawed. Kamchatka may be closer to the evolutionary center of rainbow/steelhead origin, but that is not directly relevant to the proximate cause of depressed populations in the NW. The life history of steelhead is roughly similar throughout the species' range, but it varies in small, but highly significant, ways according to latitude and prevailing climate.

The respawner rate of Kamchatka steelhead is more likely a site specific anomoly than an indicator for the species throughout its range. The western Kamchatka populations to which you refer have the least common life history strategy of any known in the species range. They are the only known Pacific population that doesn't have an open ocean migration. Apparently their seaward migration is limited to the Sea of Okhotsk, which mostly freezes over each winter, and thus these steelhead have adopted the strategy of overwintering in freshwater each year. This limited sea migration, with an annual freshwater layover, is much more conducive to a very high respawner rate than would be the case for our NW stocks which typically spend 1 1/2 to 3 and even 4 consectutive years in saltwater before re-entering freshwater.

Limited info, predating our extensive hatchery development and consumptive fisheries, suggest that a respawner rate of 30 to 35% was about as high as would be experienced here in the Pacific NW.

Further, as Bob mentions in his post, the western Kamchatka rivers have a very different climate (coastal tundra plain followed by birch/spruce forested mountains - more like our Rockies; indeed the central Kamchatka Peninsula has a vast geothermal area much like Yellowstone) than our coastal rainforest type streams. This imposes considerable and different adaptive strategies on the respective fish populations.

The primary reason the Kamchatka steelhead populations are relatively intact is that they are very remote, sort of like Bristol Bay and Kotzebue Sound Alaska. So freshwater fishing is extremely limited. And saltwater and river mouth netting occurs for salmon and is concluded before the peak of the steelhead runs.

I don't think it's appropriate to say that the Russians take better care of the environment; rather this particular environment seems not to have many natural resources to exploit - or perhaps they remain to be discovered. If you go to the north end of the Sea of Okhotsk, near Magadan, where there is extensive mining development, you will find that the rivers are as trashed as in any developed areas here. No Americans are traveling to Magadan to sport fish for salmon or steelhead; they go to the remote, unspoiled rivers.

And the Russians don't have fish hatcheries in that area. Why? Same reason we don't have hatcheries on Alaska's Bristol Bay tributaries. Don't need them when the watersheds don't have much development value and they therefore remain pristine and productive for salmon and steelhead habitat.

So what's our big deal about catch and release? Hell, we know it's not in the fish's best interest. But C&R fishing is a viable alternative to a complete closure to all fishing. There is no indication that C&R fishing is adversely affecting any steelhead populations in B.C. and Washington. Conversely, numerous steelhead populations have enjoyed considerable increases or maintenance while allowing recreational C&R fishing. While the recreational benefit is obvious, there is more to the equation. As Bob alluded to in his post, he gets a lot of opportunity to educate anglers about the needs of wild steelhead populations. The good guides that I am acquainted with have had no problem getting fully booked while requiring a wild steelhead release policy. And look around. The population of steelhead anglers has been increasing rather than decreasing while steelhead populations are depressed. The C&R conservation message is getting around. Not everybody buys into it, but more and more people are. This results over time into a larger and more effective advocacy for conservation of native steelhead populations.

So you can rant all you want, but I think your train has already left the station.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

I gotta differ with you on Russia taking care of it's environment. After the fall of Communism National Geographic wrote a piece on the rapid destruction of Russia's forests, especially Siberia, by the Asian countries that swept in to log. In fact they predicted the Siberian tiger to go from a healthy population to extinction within a few short years because the rate of logging was the worst seen in world history.