Backlash2 -
Your idea of managing some rivers exclusively for hatchery fish and others for wild is certainly a valid way of approaching some of the issues that we have been discussing. Clearly it would present some different fishing opportunties and folks need to be aware of what the realistic conditions might been. With that said if folks wish to buying into such a system I would not have major heartburn.

In taking about realistic expectations of maximum carrying capacity you mentioned the Skagit river as an examole. Very interesting and insightful case. Over the last 20 years the Skagit has had escapements of wild steelhead of 10,000 or more fish for 4 times. In every case the resulting returns fo the adults produced by those larger escapements was less than the parent run and if fact each return was less than 8,000 fish. That would seem to argue that the average capacity of the Skagit is less than 10,000 fish, probably between 8 and 9,000. Does that mean I believe escapement over 10,000 are wasted? I say NO!! I never proposed that having more fish is wasted but rather that we need to attempt to hold fishing impacts to level so that wild escapements would remain above MSH and below the capacity.

The maximum capacity on system such as the Skagit would be achieved only when both freshwater and marine survivals were well above average. Likely a very infrequent event. How would you manage we conditions were less than ideal?

To find the potential maximum carrying capacity are you proposing no fishing so that we can see that large runs possible? My read from most folks is that they wish to continue to fish (even a Catch and release fishery results in mortality so the maximum can't be reached).

I would be interested in what you would consider acceptable imapcts from a fisheries?

Reiter Rat-
The preference survey is the same one that the WSC and others cited so frequently in the arguement for WSR. It was the result of a phone survey, the survey experts say the sample size and returns were more than enough to be a statistically valid. I'm accepting their word as I don't have the time or interest to check that.

It is heartbreaking if indeed the OP returns this year are as poor as you and others are saying. Let's hope they are late. That said it does point out the need to have guidelines in place so that when poor conditions occur we have a framework to make decisions.

I didn't say that the Snohomish salmon are managed for wild salmon protection but rather for wild salmon production with exploitation rate guidelines similar to those proposed at the start of this post.

AS far as kill some wild coho in the Snohomish. I personally have no problems with selective fisheries but if folks wish to kill some wild fish where better to do that where have large runs. The traditional (MSH?) escapement goal for Snohomish coho has been 70,000 fish. This makes it one of the largest populations in Washington. The 2001 escapement of wild coho was 262,000 fish.

Are there any conditions where you would feel comfortable allowing that the taking of wild coho?

I have no doubt that those on this board represent some of the best salmon and steelhead fisherman in the state and that you all are much better fishers than I. And I sure that there is great passion for wild steelhead. My proposals were designed to cause folks to think and learn so that your collective understanding of management issues would as good as your angling skills. Hopeful then your passion and zeal can be effectively directed.

Ltlcleo -
The proposed guidelines were an attempt to move from past management, hopefully learning from past failures. It represents an attempt to manage for wild escapements well above MSH. Attempted to place the wild fish needs first and foremost; that was what summer bait bans etc were all about.

What does a functional fishery mean?

Guys - thanks for your interest and obivous concern.

Tight lines
Smalma