Yard Sale,
Perhaps I owe an apology for seeming to be an apologist? Definitely not my intent.
I was trying to respond to Klick's topic of rebuilding wild stocks. I'll try to keep my opinion separate from the facts. IMO, the first step in rebuilding is to define what rebuilding looks like. What is the "desired future condition?" So far that has not been included in the draft PS steelhead recovery plan. This suggests to me that the folks involved are still unclear on where the recovery process is headed. For comparison, the PS Chinook recovery plan has milestone habitat measures (which are running behind) and milestone population goals by watershed.
No, I'm not saying we should now begin gathering data. We have steelhead harvest and escapement data - varying in quality between river systems - going back over 35 years. Again, IMO, making a decision on what to do needs to be grounded on what is and what we already know. We have data sufficient to establish as fact that some, perhaps many or most, PS river basins are currently at their environmental carrying capacity for wild steelhead. Harvest rates have been so low over the last two decades or more as to no longer be a factor affecting population abundance. Hydro is very limited in its impact to PS steelhead populations. The hatchery steelhead impact is being debated without universal consensus currently. My interpretation of the data is that the adverse impact is small and is probably not measurable as an affect on wild steelhead population abundance.
That leaves habitat among the 4 Hs. Freshwater habitat is what it is in the PS region. My personal estimate - i.e., opinion - is that overall throughout the PS region is a slight downward trend over the last two decades that does adversely affect river basin productivity and carrying capacity. I see that trend continuing irreversibly going forward due to projected human population increase. Are there any facts to contradict my opinion?
Ocean survival is just an extension of habitat. The difference seems to be that we have less ability to influence that factor, and it is the one that has such a huge effect on anadromous fish population abundance. We have seen smolt to adult survival rates (SAR) from highs of around 10% to presently less than 1% for many populations. When we are looking at order of magnitude variations in population abundance from this singular factor, we get results like the 1988 "record" Skagit wild steelhead run of 16,000 to the 2009 "record" low return of 2,500. And both results can occur from the same or similar sized spawning escapements. I think these are facts and not just my opinion. So with this natural variation in population abundance we can have both exceptional steelhead fishing, and we can have a population so threatened it gets listed under the ESA.
My opinion is to ask "why?" A population can only be threatened in its existence from natural variation only if that variation persists at the low end long enough to thwart the intrinsic salmonid population attribute of resiliance to rebound from low abundance. I'm not saying that couldn't happen, but so far, it hasn't. It has rebounded, and it isn't threatened. Most north sound populations aren't either, except maybe the Stilly, which has some exceptionally bad environmental problems.
I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything. However I think better thought needs to be given in regard to habitat conservation and habitat improvement. I think collectively we're really poor at the former and mediocre at the latter - that's opinion, not necessarily fact.
Lastly, I hope you're not insinuating that my proximity to the process has been bad for wild stocks. I can and have listed evidence of my work resulting in increased natural production of salmon and steelhead; not an easy thing in an area where the overall trend is downward.
Sg