I'm responding to two questions that were raised, and I'm speaking only for myself, not the WSC.

1) Do we have CNR seasons to stop and reverse steelhead population declines?

No. Harvest is but one factor responsible for declines in steelhead populations. Stopping harvest removes one of the factors for population decline. Closing a fishery accomplishes this (hypothetically, since poaching may continue during closures). The purpose of a steelhead CNR season is to provide steelheading recreational opportunity when the likely alternative is a complete fishing closure. CNR is demonstrated to have no measurable adverse affect on spawning escapement and subsequent productivity. This is attributed primarily to the low mortality rate associated with CNR seasons and their single barbless hook, artificial lure regulations. Other factors include density-dependent mortality associated with the resulting juvenile population and factors not associated with the CNR fishery.

2) How long do we have to have CNR; when can we expect to harvest wild steelhead?

First, what do we mean by harvest wild steelhead? A basic 2 fish/day, 30/season, like it was a few years ago? Or more restrictive, like 1 or 5/season from a given set of rivers, like on the coast maybe? How about a lottery - you draw a ticket, like for some elk or goat hunts? My response assumes 2/day, 30/season, per angler.

The human population of Washington is 5 1/2 million and growing. The fishing efficiency of anglers has increased over time.

Harvestable wild steelhead will not occur in any significant sense in the Columbia River system upstream of McNary Dam until lower Snake River dams are breached and mid-Columbia dams are removed (Priest Rapids, Wanapum, and probably others). So it is unlikely there will ever be harvestabe wild steelhead in those areas while a significant human population remains in the region.

In western Washington, I believe we could achieve a condition suitable for a wild steelhead harvest fishery by satisfying either of the following two conditions:

A) When the human population of WA state declines to 2.5 million, overall impact on natural resources are likely to be reduced to the point where the river systems could recover enough to allow wild steelhead harvest at the level I assumed for this response.

B) Alternatively, permanently remove all humans and most signs of human development within 25 miles, east and west of I-5, from Blaine to Vancouver. The remaining landscape is significantly less suitable to human occupation, and the river systems would stand a chance of recovering to the point of sustaining a meaningful harvest. Especially as there would be no roads, drift boats, or jet boats in these areas to facilitate the harvest of fish.

This was just a long answer that could have been reduced to: never, if human population as we know it remains on the scene. To believe otherwise requires a Pollyanna perspective that ignores the incredible adverse effect humans have on salmon and steelhead even if we did not fish for them. How many of you get over 30 mpg with your fishing vehicle? When the state population was last at 2.5KK, almost no anglers had 4-wheel drive vehicles or drift boats. I think the jet sled had not quite been invented yet (came from New Zealand in early 60s). There were less than 1/3 as many miles of road as today. And there were half to 1/3 fewer dams.

On a statewide basis, we were rapidly running out of harvestable wild steelhead between 1968 and 1972 (my opinion, backed by only some data). Of course, we didn't cut back on harvesting them until begining in 1977, and much later on some rivers. And still harvest them on the coast.

The global population is over 6 billion and climbing rapidly. Some population experts believe the long-term sustainable human population for this planet is less than 3 billion. A growing population gravitates toward employment and resources useful for living, generally in the short term. Most of Washington's population growth if from immigration. The birth and death rates of people already here are about the same.

It is unlikely we can prevent further immigration and population growth. As the population grows, demands on existing resources increases. Under this scenario, all the habitat restoration projects imaginable will not create significant numbers of harvestable wild steelhead. We will continue to degrade habitat, even indirectly, faster than we can restore it.

CNR is a bit player in the big picture. It allows us continued fishing opportunity well into the foreseeable future. That, along with restrictive environmental controls, will allow us to pass a steelheading heritage to a few more generations. Hopefully, the next generation of resource and human managers will address the root cause of population and the unsustainable demand for natural resources. If they don't, the rules of ecology dictate a self-correcting action.

I apologize for the gloom and doom tone this renders, but I believe it is a fairly accurate reality check.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.