Inland,

Thanks for the appreciation; I'm happy to share any useful information.

Wow, and there's even less steelhead fishing opportunity in the Rockies!

You answered your own question in your example. The steelhead run of 1,000 fish is reduced by 5 spawners. Other hypotheses are just as applicable. On a river such as the Green, the harvest rate on native steelhead is very likely to be greater than 10%, for some of the reasons mentioned in this thread. It's close to the metro population center. Much of the good fishing water is very accessible. And anglers can stop by before or after work, so it's not just a major weekend fishing trip. Overall fishing effort is high. The overall catch is likely to be correspondingly high. And the incidental mortality, whether it be 2%, 5%, or 10%, reduces the spawning escapement by that number, whether we're fishing flies only, single barbless artificial lures, and so on. If the run is already less than the escapement goal (which is the MSH goal, which many, if not most, on this BB believe is way too low), then the population cannot possibly benefit from even this slight further reduction.

Your one last thought is very worthy of consideration in my view, perhaps even to the point of extenuating circumstance. It ain't supposed to be so, but in my observation of, and discussions with WDFW agents, closed waters are not patrolled much. Even a CNR season on wild steelhead seems to get a lot more patrol effort than a closed river at its peak with wild steelhead. I do think that CNR seasons, with their incidental mortality, might offset, at least partially, the direct mortality of poaching on an otherwise closed river. It's impossible to know, as it's an indirect relationship, but CNR seasons do put a lot of caring eyes on a river. For example, I've seen a lot of anglers on the Sauk in one day, apparently no one poaching - but some do use bait, in violation of the artificial lure reg, and a few miles away, on the Stilly, a couple poachers were bonking their second native steelhead from one pool. They got caught, but that's the exception; not the rule.

So I'm sympathetic to the notion that a legal fishery on a depressed run can offer a significant degree of protection that otherwise seems unavailable. The debate, however, is that WDFW has to draw a line somewhere. At what point do you discontinue the recreational fishing mortality on a depressed steelhead population? Under the wild salmonid policy, they have set it at 80% of the spawning escapement goal. You could suggest choosing another number, and it wouldn't necessarily be a better or worse number. But I think you have to stop fishing at some point. What would you choose?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.