Rich - Yes, fisheries management at its best. I will allow I should have added the term "present day" fisheries management or "past 30 years" or something to that effect. Don't confuse marine survival conditions and habitat conditions with fisheries management. Your reference to the 50's, 60's and 70's speaks only to abundance, I am guessing... fisheries management prior to the 70's was not what anyone would call intensive, adaptive or necessarily effective. All they had to work with in those days was harvest data. You are also talking about a time when the logging was just hitting the valley (50's) and just hitting the Clearwater (60's) and then the steeper slopes of the Salmon, Matheny and Sams basins (70's). So, you are correct... going on and on with comparisons of what abundance was like in times of high marine survival and relatively good habitat conditions and comparing them to the past 20-30 years IS pointless... I actually agree with you. Spring chinook in the Queets and Quillayute systems were never the population sizes they were, say, in the Hoh. Nor were they ever as abundant as the fall component of the run. If they were, the catch data would support your statement. Everything is based on numbers starting with the 70's becasue that is when intensive (read present day) management began. That is when the spawning survey data became collected in a systematic manner enabling estimates of spawning populations. That is when juvenile trapping efforts began that allowed insight into the productivity of the natural populations and the freshwater habitat. Age data was collected, coded wire tag grouprs were released. The UW was initiating multiple research studies on the streams and populations under State timber land jurisdiction in the Clearwater. The 70's were when managers began to develop present day databases. What about "the Hamma, Skoke, Duckabush and Dose of the 30's and 40's how bout the Dungeness humpies"??? Shall I repeat myself? Same story.

Strawberry - Beating chests? Hmmm. Don't think so. Just making the point that with present day management tools, the Queets is an example of the best. The Kalama is in there as well. If you don't like the results, that is a different issue. Management-wise there are few examples where it is better.

Gone Fishing - There was never a huge run of spring Chinook in the Queets. Again, if there were, the harvest records would show it. As for differences between the State and the Tribe, the issue is not that simple. I am pretty sure the Tribe supports a harvest rate approach which would result in a variable escapement while the State is advocating for a fixed escapement goal.

Goinfishin - I agree with you. As americans we are a small group of humans utilizing a big chunk of the world's resources. Other populations want to be just like us. There are about 1.3 billion Chinese that are gearing up their productivity and their commerce to do just that.... not to mention the 1 billion people in India. Lets see what we can do to lead the way in conservation of our natural resources and not consumerism, eh? Maybe they will want to emmulate us that way as well?

stam - Yes, you are entitled to your opinion. I just ask that you to look at what has happened the last 30 years. If the present day management were so awful we would be without any fish. Yes, things were looking bleak in the 90's for coho. Today they are looking much better. They were looking bleak in the early 80's for chinook. The late 80's and early 90's were robust years of escapement for Queets fall Chinook (for example). Unfortunately, high levels of escapement does not necessarily equal big run sizes 4 and 5 years later. Management must account for fluctuations in productivity and survival. That is what is happening today. In the past the steelhead runs have been below average for a give period of years. They have bounced back. They may again be in a period of low survival. Most fisheries managers expect this to shift to a trend of improving survival in the future.

Rich - I was not aware that there was any spawning habitat in the Queets that was not being utilized. Who's data is this?

Grandpa - Leave it to you for the "personal" comments. I feel fortunate to be labeled as somewhat knowledgable by you... makes me fell warm and fuzzy all over. As to your other comments, they simply do not make sense and the data does not support them.

bigfish - Please remember that not too much of the Queets system is under WDFW fishieries jurisdiction. The Park has its own policies and management philosophies and they do not mesh well with the Tribe's which are centered around harvesting (both commercial and sport) the hatchery coho and hatchery steelhead returns that are produced from their Salmon River facility. The Tribe is also heavily involved in supplementing the wild coho and Chinook populations in the Queets and studying the productivity and survival of naturally produced salmonids. Very few river systems are as well studied or as intensively managed as the Queets... which I think is the original point I was trying to make.