I will preface this post with a statement that I am as dedicated a fisherman as you will meet. I have other priorities in my life these days that often limit with my opportunities to get out, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't be out there every day if I could. Fishing is an important part of who I am, and it is one of a few things that make a life of mostly work and little play worth living. There. Now, on to the soapbox....

It seems clear to me that harvest is far from the only factor in the steady decline of wild steelhead populations. We are all sport fishers, and I think the majority of us believe that sport fishing has probably played only a small part in the presumed myriad of issues that have led to the critical state of wild steelhead stocks TO THIS POINT. Now, however, with numbers of returning adults as low as they are, whatever impact the sport fishing community does represent is amplified significantly, so it seems to me that we have gone from having an almost negligible impact to posing a significant (if still not the greatest) threat to the survival of the species. As long as we can be regarded as part of the problem, we cannot expect other interested parties to respond to our claims that they need to change their ways.

I think it would strengthen our position a great deal if we could clearly and honestly demonstrate that we are not actively contributing to the decline. The only indisputable way to do that, in reality, would be for us all to hang up our rods and reels for a few seasons, sit back, watch the numbers continue to decline, and say "We told you so." As Cobble Cruiser wisely noted, most of us aren't willing, if we're being honest, to do that, so something less extreme, but almost as effective, would probably be a more realistic proposal.

At minimum, I think we need to stop sport harvest on the OP rivers. At some point (and I believe we have arrived), this just becomes common sense in my mind. When populations are healthy (in the tens of thousands, at least), harvesting a few fish for food and trophies should pose no real threat to the species. On the other hand, with fewer than 5,000 fish returning to the most productive system, it seems nothing less than foolish to argue that killing even so much as one wild steelhead won't have a real impact. Realistically, we should probably close those rivers at the end of December and keep them closed until at least mid-April, but that prospect is likely too much for most of us to bear, so I favor designating those rivers as strictly catch and release on all species other than fall salmon.

I know this seems like pointing the finger at the wrong factor, but I honestly think that eliminating sport harvest is the only thing we can do in the short term that will produce undeniable, measurable results. I imagine those results would be less than dramatic (again, I don't think sport fishing has been a significant factor), but that could be a good thing. Demonstrating, through the only practical means available, that sport fishing does not make a significant contribution to the overall decline should make it clear that other factors are the greater problems and lend a lot of much-needed validation to our claims to that effect.

Truthfully, I think the only way to absolutely measure our impact would be to close sport fishing altogether for a few seasons and show that the trend has not changed as a result. Catch and release, of which I am a practicing advocate, does have its flaws (some of which have been addressed in this thread). Recognizing that, I would propose trying that out first, as a measure of avoiding complete closure, but if that doesn't prove anything in the eyes of the other groups with a stake in fisheries, I, for one, would be willing to hang it up for a few years. Sadly, I think this may be the only way to truly vindicate ourselves as an equal contributor to the trend.

The main thrust of my argument is that all this finger pointing among the interested parties produces what are probably a lot of valid points, but until SOME action is taken, things will only continue to get worse. Most of the alleged issues are highly complex, and testing them would require complicated implementations of actions that would directly or indirectly affect large numbers of people (and/or large industries with powerful lobbies) adversely. As long as other parties still have sport fishing impacts to cite as a factor, none of those actions will ever make it past the fish and wildlife governing bodies, let alone the state and federal legislatures. I would hate to see it happen, but closing sport fishing for threatened species would serve two key functions to bolster our position:

1. It would (assuming we are right, of course) produce data that strongly suggest sport fishing plays a minor, if not negligible role in the downward trend.
2. It would let the legislature see, firsthand, how much revenue would be lost without viable sport fishing opportunities.

While number 1 would make it much more difficult for the other parties to convince lawmakers that their practices are still viable, number 2 is probably the one that would motivate the State to make changes. As we all should realize, money is what drives every major decision made in our society. Commercial interests have a lot of money, and as long as we continue buying fishing licenses despite their repeated failure to improve (or even stabilize) the quality of fishing, lawmakers will not have any compelling reason not to let that money do the talking. Only when people stop paying into the same, non-functioning system will the significance of sport fishing revenue become fully apparent. Until those holding the trump cards realize why they need to focus on improving things for sport fishers (and fish, of course), we will continue to be no more than a reliable source of ongoing revenue, and our pleas will continue to fall on deaf ears.

I know, I know, if we stop fishing, we are basically surrendering. I would argue, however, and at least half seriously, that we may need to lose the short term battle to eventually win the war.

Sorry for posting yet another novel to make my point. Perhaps someday I will learn to be concise, but I doubt it.