It is the root of the habitat thing........ the productivity of it. In our time the capacity of the habitat is greatly reduced ( dams, people, everything human ) so it will not sustain the harvest it once did. That said when one is defining over harvest it must be in present circumstance not historical. To put it simply if 100 yrs ago you could harvest 1,000 from a stream with out impact but today you can only take 50 but take 100 and the run is depressed then which is it over harvest or habitat? Over harvest, as you must manage what you have not want or was present in the past.

The concept that your going to do away with and/or ignore 250 years of human impacts or fix them is almost laughable. Take PS, ( please ) they say the population will double again in this century. You really think that puny little clean up effort going on will stop the human impacts? For every one thing you fix growth will tear up two new ones. It has been the argument inside the world of fish for years, habitat restoration or preservation. Write off blasted watersheds and restore those that would have a reasonable chance of survivability and preserve those with the natural eco systems intact. I am old enough and seen enough to realize it is preservation and write off time.

Limit growth impacts and preserve those streams that are and can continue to function as ecosystems. Quite PCing the Sound and doing as the Gov is now and go after septic tanks, storm run off, and mandatory growth management. Then reduce harvest to what the watersheds individually can support and manage from the spawning beds out not the ocean in. We won't and will continue to OVER HARVEST because the habitat productivity continues to decline.

Like the old saying .................. Which came first, chicken or the egg? Or in this case habitat productivity or over harvest.