Originally Posted By: Salmo g.
Freespool,

Asking about the CNR mortality rate on summer steelhead in 70* water reads like you want to "cherry pick" your data. Why? Any well informed steelheader knows it's going to be many times greater than at 60*. Are you trying to make a point, or just looking to argue?

Actually CNR can be a very useful management tool for "unharvesting our way to recovery" in the form of significantly reduced harvest. The CNR season that began on the Skagit in 1981 did just that. The population went from extremely low escapements (3,000 - 4,000) up to a peak of 16,000, all the while being subjected to CNR sport fishing and a small CNK plunker fishery in the lower river. The run couldn't take the high harvest rates it was previously subjected to, but the greatly reduced mortality from the plunker fishery and CNR allowed most of the run to escape and spawn. And because freshwater survival conditions were average, and marine survival was fair to good, the runsize was on an increasing trend until the 1990s, when all Puget Sound and Georgia Strait steelhead populations began to steadily decline to the present very depressed status. The upshot is that CNR had no adverse effects on population status, and now that runs are below escapement, no fishing season is allowed. That's probably about as good as steelhead management can get.

Sg


Not at all, I was just showing that different conditions, angler skills etc. might be why they used a higher number.
As righteous as C&R might make some feel, the fact of the matter is fishing is a blood sport, when we hook fish some are going to die, arguing at what level it occurs seems pointless.
I'd like a citation on where harvest restrictions facilitate recovery, I can cite at least a hundred instances where it has failed to recover, even after 25 years.