Yep

We know what we need to do. We need to effectively stop and/or reverse some human impacts.

At one time, for example, we could preserve large tracts like Yellowstone. We know now, that even that, is too small for the animals in its ecosystem.

We could (probably) save wild salmon on the OP, north of Grays Harbor watershed, by essentially depopulating it. Manage the land in such a way that human impacts do not harm the fish at all. But, that slab requires fixing the ocean and similarly reducing human impacts.

JustBecause identified that our society is founded on growth. As we have more people, we need more food, water, fiber, energy. The earth has a fixed amount of resources and as we get more people, they need more which takes it away from the resources.

As humans evolved we moved out of the ecosystem, where we were no more than a functioning part of it to a creature that is able, for the time being, to avoid the ecological consequences of stupidity. The Human Race is trying really hard to win the Darwin Award.

Right now we "legally" cannot give up on the fish (esa fish at least). The legal "give up" is the "God Squad" provision, put in the law in 1979 (I think).

The God Squad ain't that keen on "giving up", either.

Recall Snake River sockeye where in 1992 only ONE fish returned to Redfish Lake... Lonesome Larry.

https://www.opb.org/news/article/lonesome-larry-at-20-still-a-symbol-of-idaho-socke/

We're still spending millions to keep this run petering along the brink of extinction.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/...ith-poor-return

The latest multi-million expenditure saw ZERO return. "This year, 162 adults returned, NONE from the Springfield Hatchery."

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2017/nov/17/experts-idaho-hatchery-built-to-save-salmon-is-kil/

We'll spend money because it is cheaper than fixing the problem. And certainly more socially acceptable.

Take those Idaho sockeye. Remove all the dams between the lake and the ocean. Or, spend a few million a year on other things in hopes they work. As a Medical Professional you know that a box of band-aids is always cheaper than fixing the real problem.

It took us 150 years of harvesting salmon commercially, recreationally, and otherwise to our hearts content to deplete the populations to the levels that they are at today.... and still today we continue to harvest fish for the table although with more oversight than the past...

Why the hell anyone would think it would take any LESS than 150 years to bring the runs back (naturally) to where they once were is beyond me.

Because if you look at the natural swings sometimes they go faster. Puyallup and Green pinks went from tens of thousands, at most, to millions in maybe a decade. Canada laying off chum for four years took some runs from, again, 10-20K to 100-200K.

They have shown that it CAN happen. Certainly, until the dams come out we can't restore populations from above them but in the dam-free systems we can accomplish a lot by killing a lot less. The fish themselves will improve gravel quality and egg-fry survival by the simple act of spawning.

We can't lose sight, though, that to get back our salmon we need to fix the ocean issues from the base of the food web up to the apex predators. Keeping in our comfortable silos is a one-way ticket to failure.

Didn't know the SR Sockeye had been through the God Squad "successfully"? I thought there were still Endangered and being pushed for recovery, hence the final, 2015 Snake River Sockeye Recovery Plan:
http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/...overy_plan.html

I think Doc was referring to the God Squad in general. It easier to let politics and events "solve" problems rather than going on record with an actual decision.

It would look pretty bad for them to say, essentially, that it was just too much trouble and cost to save those fish. As human population grows, pressures will only increase.

Habitat is the ultimate, but we're not making the most of the habitat we have now. Not by a longshot. Reducing the Alaska and BC ocean fisheries by any percentage will increase the number of returning spawners to the mainland US by very nearly the same percentage. Quickest, most reliable means of putting more fish on the gravel. Whether those fish hitting the gravel results in better future returns would remain to be seen....

We basically engineer our spawner returns so that only the number we think we need to sustain future fisheries will spawn. Why on earth would we ever expect that to result in any increase, let alone anything resembling recovery?

Salmon are managed not by biology/ecology but by economics. What is the minimum investment that I "have" to put in to maximize return? The only value that a spawning salmon has is what it can contribute to the catch in the next generation, of that particular stock. We want to maximize short-term profits, period. It's the American Way.

Couldn't agree with this more. It has always been the number one big flaw in hoping for "recovery".

If only AK and BC would see that letting some of our fish come home would mean MORE fish for them in the future...

Thing is, "we" could see the same thing. AK and BC are pretty much capped. The US/Canada Treaty had (hope it still does) a statement that enhancement/restoration benefits should accrue to the folks who absorbed the cost of not killing fish.

So, we could put more fish on the grounds, maintain the Northern caps, and have the increases pass through to us.

Wonder how long we have before Wa state has to start paying the tribes for lost
fish opportunity due to lost enviroment. I also do not see us fishing in rivers or salt much in the near future. The law suits that are coming are going to be crazy. Do not have any facts but above opinions are gut feelings only.

Redlodge, your crystal ball is spot on. In my pet project at Point No Point, I predict the tribes will file a suit and be granted an injunction if the Corps approves the ramp installation permit. This probable suit will set major precident on the scope of tribal influence and control over land and all waterways in Washington. I do hope the Govt gets their act together for that litigation, and they better "get right" as to who they represent, and get it right the first time, because there won't be a second chance.
As they say, "This is it."

As a reminder, Boldt II held that the Tribal Right is Dead Fish in the Boat. That is viewed as the habitat hammer. They won the Culvert Case and WA continues to drag its feet on compliance. The State does need to appeal the Culvert Case to the Supremes. The stakes are really high. Tribes win, and the state(s) will either owe a lot of money for habitat loss or they will have to stop growth and probably roll back quite a bit.

Alternatively, if the State wins the resources lose because money is needed so we need to develop, develop, develop.

I do not think the general public is aware as to what is going to happen to them on these issues. The amount of money needed is going to be astronomical. With as screwed up as this state we are going to lose. Our people are not smart enough to battle the tribes

carcassman you are spot on

I'd heard that only 40% of the available habitat was being utilized by wild spawning salmon on the Nooksack. And the Nooksack springs are one of the big constraining stocks.

But is the same true on the Stilly? I had heard that the problem on the Stilly *IS* lack of habitat (perhaps due to rapid development and also the landslide?). Does anyone know any details on the habitat situation on the Stilly?

Back in the 70s, WDF put out some interesting reports about PS salmon. In one, the discussion was about how well management was doing. They pointed out, correctly, that in some rivers like the Green they were both not meeting the wild escapement goal and having extreme hatchery surpluses (unmarked at the time). The solution? Lower the wild goal and claim success that they could now hit the target.

When they set the Chinook goals, still mostly in use today, it was clearly stated that these goals did not use all the available habitat but that it was not rational to do so. And yet, ask any property owner how imoportant protecting that habitat is "for the fish".

We have met the enemy and he is us.-Pogo