I think this might sum it up best but I can't resit a few more comments.



The three components that influence population abundance mentioned by Salmo g. are not independent. No matter how much effort is spent on addressing problems with one of the components little success can be expected without understanding the dependence amongst all of the components. The three are linked by climate, a measure and expression of the linkage. This discussion has many components that illustrate this. Geomorphology was mentioned in relation to fish migration, geomorphology is a result of the interaction of tectonic and climatological forces. In the context of this discussion it is a long term process but it is a continuing one. Historic information of the past 100 years has been used to explain some of the variation of various runs to the Skagit River and it was noted that in the 1970's there was a major change in run size and composition. Almost all climatologists agree that in the 1970's there was a major change in the North Pacific ocean/ climate regime. It is not that this was unusual, it is just that most of us who fish had not experienced the consequences. 10,000 years ago Eastern Oregon was a lush landscape of lakes, many with connection to the Columbia River. Relatively large human populations lived around these lakes relying on the fish and wildlife for food. Today the lake bottoms are sage brush valleys, the people that relied on the lakes gone, there are still fish populations though in the small streams that flow through these valleys. The point is that the world is not static, it is always changing, the concept that a wild fish population in a particular river can be recovered or even preserved is a tenuous one. It is particularly tenuous if the measure of recovery is a population size that can be fished for in any fashion. Salmon are opportunists, if conditions favor survival they will prosper and if not there will always be a population somewhere that can recolonize when conditions improve. In the long term the fish have a much better chance of survival than we humans do.



This question is a good illustration of the necessity of understanding all of the components of salmon ecosystems, marine and freshwater. If stress is applied to an ecosystem species with the most complex life histories are most likely to suffer. Of the salmon pinks have the most simple life history, unlike the other salmon they don't have an extended freshwater component of their life history. I think that there are some populations that spawn on saltwater beaches and have no freshwater component. They grow faster than any other salmon, they have the shortest life cycle, they stray the most and they are the most numerous salmon in the Pacific. All of these factors contribute to the ability of pinks to adapt to changing environments much faster than the other salmon, in that sense they are much tougher than a king or steelhead. The resident rainbow are another illustration of the value of a simple life history. They are impacted by the effects of climate but not nearly as much as anadromous rainbow. This is a different example of how a species has adapted to survive environmental changes. Have two life history forms so that in good times one dominates and in bad times the other form is a genetic bank. The Redband rainbow trout in the Pleistocene lake beds of Oregon are another example.



I think there are scientist of this generation that are trying to figure it out. I also think that the agencies and organizations that are in a position to assist in figuring it out through funding don't want to know. For example f the actions of the numerous salmon recovery programs were evaluated in their relationship to the total ecosystem, marine and freshwater, it might show that a great deal of money is wasted. They are economic stimulus programs, they benefit people and not salmon. Another good example related to salmon is NOAA Fisheries North Pacific research programs. They are proud to point out their ecosystem based management of the pollack and groundfish fisheries. What they don't point out is that any management scheme has a goal of optimizing something. In this case they want a maximum sustained catch of the target species. Their science is directed towards achieving this goal and demonstrating that bycatch is not a problem. They are not concerned with salmon return to rivers. It is like one of the most intensively managed ecosystems anywhere, the Iowa corn farms where corn production is the goal. If the goal is more steelhead in the Skagit River than a knowledge of the entire ecosystem is necessary and an understanding that it is a dynamic system. In can never be restored to what was, with some knowledge it might be possible to steer the change in a direction to achieve the desired goals. It is an interesting process and one that can be discussed over many beers more than once.