CFM,

No, I don't find it so odd. Understanding the steelhead's life cycle is a different thing than knowing where the steelhead is during every part of that life cycle. Knowing where the steelhead is in the ocean is useful, but not critical to understanding its life cycle. We have empirical evidence that steelhead return to their natal streams following their ocean migration. If NMFS has additional data demonstrating a population's decline over time, then they have sufficient information to list stocks as threatened or endangered under the ESA. The information regarding factors for the decline, like overharvest, dams, and habitat degradation, is useful, but not mandatory for a listing.

Knowing exactly where steelhead spend their ocean migration is useful in understanding the effects of additional factors like high seas driftnetting and the effect of ocean temperatures on upwelling, phyto and zooplankton production that influence marine survival rates. Although interesting and potentially useful, such information is by no means necessary for ESA listings. Considering that steelhead spread out in the ocean in apparently low densities and that data on their whereabouts is generally obtains coincidentally with other ocean and high seas investigations, I'm surprised that scientists have discovered as much as they have about the steelhead's wanderings in the sea.

BTW, that book on ocean migrations I mentioned in the post above is by Pearcy (sp).

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

[ 01-26-2002: Message edited by: Salmo g. ]