salmo g, thanks for the post. i understand, pretty much, what your position is regarding the decline in wild steelhead. with all due respect, i think you and your fellow biologists are using the wrong yard stick. your training, how long ago was that, presented you with facts, figures and a methodology for examining the various situations involving fish escapement and how to manage the resource for competing interests. but, this is a new century and the tried and true, given what you have described, requires a new, fresh start if management of the resource is to succeed. your explainations, once again, remind me of the young man at oregon state u. who had his disertation on 'forest management after wildfires', published. i am sure you read all about the audacity of this young man who took on the notion that intensive harvest was the only way to restore a fire ravaged forest. the long held training model for the forestry department. when, it seems from his investigation, the exact opposite was the operative strategy. it strikes me that this exact situation is what has mislead attempts at fishery management. the 'old' way of thinking no longer fits the current situations. you have pointed out; population increases, covering over with pavement, harmful runoff, draw down of ground water, clearing riparian zones, dramatic ocean condition changes, and this long list could go on for pages. so now the question becomes, given all of these changes, how can any professional continue looking at management through a lense that was sharp and clear 20 years ago, and expect to make a difference TODAY. well, you see, you can't! we should also put into play the actual harm these same trained fish biologists have done to the resource. to whit, the indiscriminate move to quickly raise a concrete adaptable steelhead for stocking everywhere. as we all know, the habitat can only carry so many fish. once the fish biologist supported this indiscriminate stocking, they plugged that habitat with inferior fish not suited for the hazards and unknown pecularaties of these independent drainage strains. and we all know that once that happens, for decade after decade, the wild fish are simply over run by concrete fishes and slowly but surely disappear. my own two eyes confirm this, as the wild steelhead are no longer where they used to be. of course lots of factors, but that is what we have to deal with in this century, and that requires a new paradigm for management. so now we have far fewer wild steelhead, and still we are going to support the killing of those few and falling numbers. now that is the sort of 'management' thinking that wild steelhead do not need in this century. you also point to the west end stocks as 'ok' as determined by fish biologists. just what does that mean?? what are the percentage returns, this year vs last year vs 2000 vs 1995 vs 1990 vs 1980 vs 1970 vs 1960? while i don't have those numbers at hand, i would suspect that a long view, as you suggest, would reveal a steep and getting steeper decline of the west end wild steelhead runs as well. probably to the point that these fish are overdue for and ESA listing. now lets add to that, bank to bank net sets which kill everything that enters the river systems. it is impossible to argue that they are not having a dire effect on wild escapement. i believe the point is simply that WDFW lacks the courage to 'tilt at that windmill' 'cause sure as the sun will rise, those fish are disappearing under our very noses. so salmo g., i appreciate your perspective, but i believe it is no longer grounded in the realities of this century. some brave young person is eventually going to break the mold at our local training institution and publish that long awaited paper underscoring the folly of the strategies which continue to fail all of us. in the interum, extinction is what we are facing, and at an exponential rate.