I think words matter, so I try to choose mine as carefully as I can. I didn't say "no impact." There is potential impact in the unlikely event that a fly fisher hooks and harms three, or even one, of those Stilly Chinook. I understand take under the ESA, and I think it's reasonable to argue that take in this particular freshwater fishery is a dubious outcome. It looks like WDFW decided to sacrifice the dubious and doubtful take in the Stilly for the far more likely mortal take of Stilly Chinook in the marine waters fishery. And marine waters fishing is the only fishing that gets considered at NOF, until it becomes apparent that more marine fishing can be squeezed out by pretending that closing gamefish seasons in freshwater will prevent take.

The ESA isn't interested in how or where take occurs, and the fish aren't either. I used the term tangible benefit because the fish managers are in the position to know that not all take is equal. The ESA is silent on the notion of reproductive effectiveness and might even assume that each additional spawner makes a positive benefit to the subsequent generation of fish. In the case of the Stilly, it isn't true. Whether incidental take is of 3, 30, or 300 (if there are that many) has no measurable effect on the survival and recovery of Chinook, when the population cannot even replace itself in the total absence of fishing. The fate of the Stilly Chinook is in the effectiveness of the hatchery program for decades into the foreseeable future. When fishing is not a factor affecting recruitment to the next subsequent generation, thinking people are going to ask, "what benefit accrues to Stilly Chinook by not fishing for steelhead and SRC?" And when those thinking people understand that the answer is "none," then they are going to question the wisdom and logic of the decision.