RichG posted: Salmo,, that is just plain poppycock...

I bet you on average we are at less than 1% carrying capacity and less than 1% of the available habitat is being utilized for spawning...

You do not reach maximum carrying capacity until the volume of fish exceeds the volume of water discharge under normal conditions...

Rich, I don't think we can have this conversation until you take and get a passing grade in:
Biology 101 - 103
Ecology 300
Physics 101 - 103
Hydraulics 300

The biomass of every living organism, including salmon, is controlled by a descending series of limiting factors. I would bet you on that 1% of carrying capacity allegation, but you would never admit that you're wrong, no matter what proof was presented, so I'll not waste that effort.

Even in pristine natural environments, the carrying capacity for fish is determined by the amount of suitable food and space. In no system on earth does the fish biomass equal the volume of water discharge.

"The science you consider an accepted discipline and benchmark was manufactured in accordance with this agenda with the sole purpose to justify actions and manufacture the result of scarcity for the purpose of control..."

Rich, you appear to suffer from the Dunning - Kruger effect which means that you're too dumb to realize that you're dumb. The science that I consider as an accepted discipline has evolved from the ancient Greeks and the more ancient Sumerians before them. The development of science goes at least as far back as 8000 years and the most ancient dams, canals, and aqueducts and is the result of systematic observation and experiment, then and now and all times in between. Science is manufactured only in your mind, like most every kooky notion that you post.

RichG also posted: "Frankly the smartest/common sense thing to do is manage for maximum production,,, its best for the environment,, the food chain and best for humanity..."

Rich, you're correct, except for the humanity part. By what you've written I can tell that you don't even understand what you're saying. Managing for maximum production has to mean zero harvest. That includes zero harvest by humans. If you allow even one salmon to be taken by a human, you are, by definition, no longer managing for maximum production.

C'man,

When RichG makes a valid point, it is more like a stopped clock being correct twice a day than by intelligent analysis.

It's true that WDF set Chinook spawning escapement goals according to the 10-year average for which the Department had data and not by any biological metric. However, you know darn well that available spawning habitat is not a limiting factor for Chinook. Juvenile rearing habitat, freshwater and estuarine, limits juvenile populations, and then populations are limited by marine foraging and predator-prey relationships. Available spawning habitat may be limiting for pink salmon, but not other species.

The Lk WA sockeye escapement goal was set according to estimates of available spawning habitat. Clearly that isn't the limiting factor for those sockeye, or else populations of that size or larger would occur far more frequently than they have. Since that doesn't happen, by definition the population is limited by other factors, most likely freshwater juvenile rearing combined with lake predator - prey relationships and passage at the Ballard Locks. If Lk WA were moved to the Fraser, increasing the escapement goal would not obviate the productivity problems that are endemic to Lk WA, and the population would still remain as it is, except for not having the passage issues at Ballard. The true life facts are that the carrying capacity for sockeye in Lk WA has been compromised by a variety of factors such that Cedar River spawning habitat and Lk WA juvenile sockeye forage are not limiting productivity.

In general I agree with you that spawning goals are set to maximize harvest. MSH became the co-management goal in 1984 when Wilkerson was WDF Director, with some exceptions.

Regarding contemporary carrying capacities, I think we have some decent examples in Puget Sound wild steelhead. The Nisqually steelhead have not been fished on since 1993, that's over 30 years. Knowing the resilience of salmonid populations, those steelhead have rebounded to today's carrying capacity, freshwater and marine waters combined. It looks like the carrying capacity ranges from around 800 to 2,000, even though the Nisqually Tribe's recovery goal is for 2,000 harvestable steelhead. This simply shows that managers can print whatever they want on paper, but given the chance, the ecosystem tells us plain as day what it can deliver under contemporary conditions.

Another example is Skagit steelhead. The wild population has been actively managed since 1978. Harvest has been allowed in more years than not, but conservatively regulated overall. Escapements have ranged from 2,500 to 16,000, with and average of about 8,000. No matter how much managers want that natural run to recover to 20,000 or more, it just ain't gonna' happen (unless marine survival rates take a significant upswing, which doesn't appear likely).