Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
FS I sometimes just want to beathead. All human activities are take. Dams, net incidental, C&R mortality, whatever. They are habitat but they are also harvest. A stream with diminished rearing capacity on the C will not do well with out targeted harvest due the number of mortality issues in the C itself and as this nation heads to loan default the billions to fix habitat, IF IT WAS POSSIBLE, are not going to be around.

Call it what you will but this is the fact. IT AIN"T GOING TO CHANGE NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU HURL VERBIAGE OUT AT OTHERS. The growing needs of the human condition will outstrip the needs of salmonids every time. By the way many aspects of ESA are administrative and can be redefined without the agreement of the courts. So do not bet your beliefs on the US congress as those whores will sell you out in a heart beat.


+ many, and precisely why I have maintained that we should focus on harvest and hatchery reform in the short term. Harvest first, as it is the one thing we can effectively and immediately affect. The changes associated with hatchery reform, though costly and probably a bit unrealistic, would likely be much more palatable to humanity than those associated with habitat restoration.

If limiting harvest doesn't help and hatchery reform is not feasible, we are all screwed. When the salmon are gone, the loss of fishing opportunity will be the least of our concerns, considering the dire effects that would have on the entire ecosystem.