Plunker-

Since you live on a river that is basically on it's knees, and one that you can't legally harvest wild steelhead anymore, do you know why the run declined to this point? And can you scientifically prove it? (I don't want WDFW answers here as they are only around for one reason- To manage harvest allotment and nothing else.) Bruce???

To the vocal minority of Pro-kill that is constantly defending their position on this board-

The fish runs on the OP are in decline. Can you show that the #'s of wild steelhead in '04 are anything comparable to 100 years ago? Look at the two most common reasons given, from your own arguments, for the decline: Harvest and Habitat.

Native American harvest, and the Bolt decision, is the biggest complaint usually voiced here. Is this the true cause of the declining fish #'s over the past century? Or is it part of the problem? Where does sport harvest play into this equation, set at 50% of the harvestable "surplus"? What about the hatchery fish and their genetic pollution of the wild stocks? Any ideas on how much this might be contributing to the collapse of the early returning component? What is the quickest fix WE can apply to the resource to help slow, stop, or reverse the decline? WSR

Habitat. Damaged habitat. Is this the true cause of the decline? And if it is the largest contributor to the problem, why are you not spending all of your time, $$$, and energy (the energy and time spent arguing on a BB that could be applied towards the REAL, according to your own arguments, problem? If the habitat issues were FIXED would the issue of WSR be the hourly theme on this BB?

And to those that feel we should just close the rivers cause if they ain't healthy enough to killem then they ain't healthy enough to be harrassed.

I voluntarily choose to limit my effectiveness and I voluntarily choose to release wild salmonids. The methods I practice have been scientifically shown to result in 2% mortality on angled steelhead. That means if I were to fish 100 days over the winter/spring season and be blessed enough to positively identify 30 HOOKED steelhead my KILL rate is going to be .6 fish. And if I use barbless short shank #4 hooks I can pretty much guarantee that the kill rate is going to be even less. A competent baitfisherman can hook that many fish on a couple of good weekends with a much, much, much higher mortality rate (approaching 10%). You do the math on who is going to impact the population more.

I am not arguing that fishing is not a blood sport because it is. I also find no remorse in 'torturing' a wild creature only to let it go where it is going to survive 98% of the time to finish its job. I can live with those odds. I choose to CONSERVE my harvest allotment for the least amount of impact to the resource.

But I do grow tired of the 'red herring' argument tactics. The truth is that if sport harvest is reduced to the LOWEST possible # there will be more fish making it to the redds. How can that be wrong? This whole pro kill argument being vehemently defended here just comes across as "You are not going to tell me what to do" rather than look to the future and what COULD be.

And for those, even the biologists that participate, here is quote that pretty much sums up my feeling towards conservation FIRST:

"Not only are ecosystems more complex than we think, they are more complex than we can think".

William