Chuck,

As much as sportsmen think commercial netting is the bane of fish populations, we don't have the evidence to support that. Granted, netting that takes fish from a depressed population sure doesn't do it any favors, nor does CNR sportfishing for that matter, but present indications are that netting is WAY down the list of problems for wild Skagit steelhead.

Aunty,

I hear ya'. We can't harvest forage and expect it not to affect the species that depend on that forage. Tell ya' what, make me king, and I can fix a few things, tho no where near all of 'em.

Todd,

Most of the world's problems and deals are dealt with and made over a few drinks. This should be no different.

Mitch,

May is tarheel season. Always has been, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. Fortunately, bad as that is, even that is not the proximate cause of population decline.

Smalma,

I'd like a normative river as much as anyone. Yet we have to acknowledge that the steelhead population was good, and even rebounded under the sustained flow fluctuation conditions that do cause depressed benthic production. Makes it impossible for me to conclude that is the proximate cause, tho it is an incremental contribution, like so many other effects.

We have a window of opportunity, but the legal burden is likely to be: clear, cogent, and convincing - the highest legal requirement in an evidenciary hearing. I remember what Skagit fluctuations were like in the 1970s, and I'm more than hesitant to recommend returning to that model of flow management. If we can figure this out, we can do something. However, ESA consultation doesn't require new or additional studies. It relies on the "best available," so we need to see if we can eek out new conclusions from existing data and studies.

BTW, with the Skagit River as the blood running through my veins, it's more than slightly bothersome that the Skagit is no longer pink and chum central. It's like when my home team is a basketball dynasty for decades and then some podunk town down the road comes along and trounces ya' all of a sudden, and it keeps happening year after year. Maybe it's emotional; maybe it's ecological. Either way, it would help to know. I intend to give it a good look. Maybe you'll want to join Todd and me for those beers?

DaveD,

Benthic invertebrate production has been depressed in the upper Skagit since at least the 1950s, so we need to identify more recent causes of adverse changes. Bull trout juveniles tend to remain in there tributaries where forage is somewhat more abundant than in the mainstem upper Skagit. Bull trout grow slower than hell until their mouth is large enough to eat stoneflies; then their growth curve takes off. They do better on large forage items, like small fish, hee, hee. Consequently if the Skagit dams adversely affect bull trout, it would be the indirect effect of limited the forage supply. But honestly it would be close to impossible for me to make that case. Bull trout are faring better than steelhead in the Skagit.

ESA consultations are not public. Seattle seems pretty committed to an open process, so if they are agreeable I'll post occasional status reports. The consultation won't officially begin until June 2010.

Killallmarxist,

I think you posted in the wrong thread. This is gonna' be a place for serious and thoughtful discourse. Adios.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.