Rich -
I'm not trying to be combative but rather seeking that folks clarify what it is that is desired.

It is important to remember that WSR has been in the steelhead fishery management tool kit in Washington for 20 years and CnR has been around for 25 years. Until very recently the support for such management (at least as expressed by angler lobbying) has been luke warm at best. For much of that time period the source of such management orginated within WDFW. Since the late 1970s/early 1980s the steelhead angling community has been largely drug kicking and screaming into a fishing world that inlcudes something other than bonking everything caught.

I have to disagree - biologically there is not difference in a fishery that allows a 10% harvest rate and one that has a 10% impact in a CnR fishery - either way 10% of the population died. There is a large social difference, especially in who gets to have the impacts.

Having the population as large as it can be while allow a recreational fishery is not possible. Any fishing mortality will reduce the population by some fraction. The question then becomes is how much of an impact is one comfortable with or as you put it how much of a safety net does one want to provide the population. How large of a safety net do you want?

Remembering that populations naturally vary in abundance over time due to variable survival conditions. Do we manage differently depending those variations (more conservative at low population levels)?

Do any of the other advocates of statewide WSR have any input or thoughts into these issues?

Tight lines
Smalma