Todd -
I was asking if any of you individually or the organization as a whole had positions on these issues.

The mission statement clearly indicates that WSC considers past management as having failed. To make that assessment you must have some idea what "correct management" must look like. What would likely be an escapement objectives under such management? Throwing around terms like "healthy populations" without defining what that means is not very helpful!

Would CnR (targeted at wild fish with mortality) be allowed at any run size? At some level in relationship to the escapement objective? At runs above the escapement objective? You tell me.

As some of the previous discussions indicate there is a variety of opinions on this issue. Unfortunately this is one of the least controversial factors in steelhead management.

You asked about my thinking on the 80% rule. If the position is that there can not be any harvest on runs under the escapement objective then allowing a CnR at runs at or below that level would be intentional overfishing and in my mind should not be allowed. In the current situation in Puget Sound where the goals were set based on MSH with the actual goals "buffered" to take in account the uncertainity is setting the goals the issue gets a little more foggy. The Skagit was mentioned; here the current goal is 6,000 which is 150% of the best estimate of what the MSH goal might be. How do you want to deal with that buffer? The 80% rule recognizes this buffer and essentially allows this low impact fishing (small mortality). Whether this is appropriate depends on how much one wishes to error on the side of the fish.

This discussion clearly indicates why WDFW is always wrong - no can agree on anything except the current situation is some one else fault.

Tight lines
Smalma