Smalma, from the range of issues covered in this thread, I think your quest for complexity succeeded. And I agree with the points in your last 2 posts (all off our rockers). I also believe that the WSR debate needs to be put into the context of the full range of issues on the table. As you say, we know how to eliminate fishing impacts, just close all fishing. But there are potentially huge costs to cutting fish-constituents out of the equation, especially given all the political opponents to restoring and protecting habitat, and keeping water in and pollution out of our rivers. If those habitat issues are much larger than the harvest/Cnr impacts, you might make a strong case for keeping people fishing.
So it is about risk assessment, or cost/benefit analysis, whichever you like to call it.

Eddie- I like what you did with those numbers. Thanks for going to the trouble of digging them out and making some sense out of them.