Todd-
Thanks for your thougths!

I could not agree more on the problems with managing with less than prefect data. However that should not be an excuse not to do best we can. We need to continue to make the best decisions we can with infromation at hand, evaluate those decisions and attempt to improve on that data. Fishery management by its very nature has to be a process of evaulating and improving on past actions and information. Of course improving the data with take $$.

One problem in attempting to manage to achieve capacity each year is we can't know what that will be. For example the potential capacity for steelhead spawning this spring will be determined by the freshwater and mairne conditions (the density dependent factors that Salmo g. talks about) their offspring will experience over the next several years. Not being able to see into the future we will likely have to rely on past information. Essentiallly to determine the average carrying capacity we would need to use the same data and models that would be used to develop estimates of MSH. Thus we would have the same data problems whether the reference point is MSH or capacity.

I have see a number of folks from WSC recommmend escapement objectives of "carrying capacity" while at the same time say that CnR would be OK. Most steelhead managers feel that our populations would be best describe by a Beverton-Holt S/R curve. Under such a model by definition any fishing induced mortaltiy would mean not achieving carrying capacity. A Ricker type S/R curve would allow for some fishing and still achieving carrying capacity. What information does WSC and its Bios have that would indiate that a Ricker S/R curve better describes our steelhead populations?

Again your comments regarding safeguards are right on the money. The question remains what those sageguards should be? Does WSC have general guidelines for determine such safeguards?

Tight lines
Smalma