I have thought about what I have writen and I feel I owe Ms. Jackson a public appologies about her saying the science is junk. It came from a source I trust very much but I should have known better then to bring it out publically knowing full well it could never be verified one way or an other. I care so much about the basin that I hear things like that and I run with them rather then just sticking to the facts. I am sorry i was wrong for say that and for bring it up attatched to your name. My arguement looses steam when I don't stick to facts.

Facts that have been laid out in the BA.
1) There was no good scientific escapement set specfically for the Umpqua basin. Page 31 they picked some average of the 30 not specific to the Umpqua basin.
2) The ODFW will consider the run healthy unless it drops 75% for a 6 year average. Page 58
3) They say that the North fork can handle a 20% exploitation rate with no long term damage but their own data and estimations tell them that the rate will be higher then that 5-15%. Citations give earlier.
4) No recruitment survey done for the main stem. Page 28
5) Run estimates have a wild variation almost 9K dependant on what model you use so who knows which one if any are correct. Table 4 of the BA

But i know for a lot of people this doesn't matter that there are holes. heck I am not even sure I understand them all. I feel like there are enough holes to warrent erroring on the side of the fish and fishing opportunity rather than the side of harvesting fish and hope that everything goes Ok in the future. No amount of stats is going to change that for me or for the other side either.

So I am done with this thread unless someone has some question about things and I will only try to respond with facts that I can site. Hopefully some of these holes that have been called out will help people make up some of there mind.

JJ