OK how about this.
Page 26 of the Biological assesement says that the exploitation average would be 36% on the North Fork. 26% average from the old regulation and 10% with regulations that were implemented a few years ago. They used an average and it could be 45% (the real max value was 35% page 26 of the BA plus the increase of 10% with the regs).

Then on page 33. "These results and analyses support the proposition that the North Umpqua winter steelhead population could sustain at least a 20% mortality rate (and perhaps even a 30% rate) without suffering any long-term adverse consequences".

So they are managing it above what they say will have will have long term impact. 16% above what they officially will have a negative long term adverse. So I assume support inflicting long term negative impact?

Ok balls in your court to prove that wrong. And answer the other questions that have been asked that you ignored.

I have lots other like there distribution radio survey was done with 92 fish over 3 years. Hardly a representative sample. Figure 9 of the BA.