It seems the broad brush is swinging again. I believe the WSC "fact sheet" refers to natural steelhead runs and escapements (it helps to be precise in these matters). It would seem, from an examination of the naturally produced steelhead run size data, that the coastal streams are in a down swing. Again, this has happened before, as have the up swings. Expect these swings to continue. Meanwhile, we are in an up swing for salmon on the coastal systems. This is often the case where steelhead cycles are out of synch with the salmon cycles. So is it time to list these steelhead populations on the endangered species list? Probably not.

So who's right??? The "desired" WDFW escapement goal (which has worked so well on other rivers with other steelhead populations) or the Tribal harvest rate approach??? If I am not mistaken, there is a large contingent on this site that is opposed to the fixed point escapement approach used by WDFW, am I right? But heaven forbid a Tribe dare to be different and think outside the box. Give it a chance.

wildfishlover - There always has to be someone to blame, eh?

stam - I think I already made the point that large escapements, which might occur in the short term once the "nets were pulled" will not necessarliy equate to "runs growing."