Freespool, as Salmo g. said, overharvest has been identified in numerous status reviews by numerous BRT's. That would only suggest that past (and not current) harvest has had an effect on populations viability. I have no idea what a "stock assessment survey" that you refer to is, but I will assure you that you will never see any report from any salmon manager or NMFS that specifically states that current harvest rates are limiting recovery. There would be a couple of reasons for this. First, the managers would never admit that any of the actions they have control over (harvest or hatchery) have any impact on the status of natural populations, and that the entire issue is habitat. Additionally NMFS could never admit that it allowed harvest that impaired recovery or it would get its socks sued off. You will however see changes in harvest that is "suggested" in various NMFS documents such as guidance documents to the PFMC. I will give you an example of these from one of the ESU's that have been referred to already, the lower Columbia and Willamette Chinook ESU. When the LCR Chinook were first listed in 1999, harvest rates on LCR tules was "reduced" to 65%. That was the harvest rate allowed from 1999 - 2002. In 2002 through 2006, the maximum allowable harvest rate was reduced from 65% to 49%. Harvest was reduced further to 42% in 2007, 41% in 2008, and 38% in 2009 and 2010. The NMFS "guidance" for 2011, suggests a maximum harvest rate on tules of 36%. The guidance letter states that these reductions are "a necessary part of an overall strategy to achieve recovery."

So, will you find a specific stock assessment survey that says that recovery of LCR tules is limited by harvest? Absolutely not! However, by reviewing the harvest rates allowed since listing in 1999, versus the current guidance for harvest, it appears that NMFS has concluded that the harvest rates since listing have not been consistent with recovery. Who knows if the current suggested harvest reductions will be low enough. This is only one example. I could certainly give a few more examples from Puget Sound where managers have applied (and NMFS has allowed) harvest rates from 50% - 80% on populations deemed necessary for recovery when the best available biological information suggests that those populations could sustain harvest rates in the 20% - 30% range. I again assure you that you will never see this mentioned in any status report, but it does occur to the detriment of recovery.