Aunty M,

You've asked about wild steelhead spawning behavior and subsequent success after C&R. It's a valid question, but it's slightly off the mark. It's not that steelhead spawning behavior after C&R is irrelevant, but in a fundamental sense, it's not what matters.

First, let me say that I don't have direct evidence regarding the specific spawning success of individual wild male or female steelhead after C&R. What we do have is the indirect evidence of the success of a run, on a population basis, with regard to its reproductive success when that population has been subjected to an extensive C&R fishery. The population evidence from the Skagit River is that the C&R fishery has no measurable adverse impact on the reproductive success of the population. The unit of measure is spawner recruitment.

If C&R or any other variable is limiting a wild steelhead population, then the total recruitment, or recruits/spawner will decline. Unfortunately, there are always other variables in the mix, and the wild Skagit steelhead population is too small, and the effects of one or more of the other variables is too large, for us to statistically tease out the exclusive effects of C&R fishing via multivariate regression.

However, there are some large swings to the Skagit wild steelhead population that occur during the period the C&R seasons have occurred - 1981-present. Some of the swings have been positive, and some have been negative. The population swings up and down appear to be independent of C&R fishing. There is nothing that would correlate C&R fishing with a negative impact to the reproductive success of the Skagit wild steelhead population. While it's biologically true to say that catching a steelhead never did any fish, or its population any good, it's equally true in this case to say that C&R fishing has done no demonstrable harm to the wild Skagit steelhead population.

Further, Todd is wrong about the length of the Skagit C&R season. It's 45 days long on the Skagit and 61 days on the Sauk, but let's not quibble, since it flat out doesn't matter to the biological health of the fish population in question. It can only matter to those who may be caught up in emotional, rather than logical, arguments about this fishery and how it is managed.

The upshot to the situation remains unchanged. The Skagit, and all other steelhead populations, require substantial habitat of reasonable quality measured in terms of productivity and capacity. They require it now and for as long as we wish to have them around. Additionally, the PS steelhead populations may benefit if we can identify the present marine limit on survival, and we are able to positively influence that variable. And even if we cannot, at least we'd advance our understanding of the things that can and do limit fish populations.

I think you also made comments about high seas fishing and bycatch. We been there, done that. It ain't zero, but it also ain't the limiting factor, not by a long shot. USCG and NOAA LE pretty well resolved that in the 1990s.

If this thread is about harping about things that don't matter in any substantive sense, please continue. If there are further questions of substance, I may drop back in.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.