Freespool,

OK, we've tried spoon feeding you, but still you persist in appearing dumb as a box of rocks. I'm puzzled as to why you do this. You posted, "My point is these populations are all suffering from many different environmental issues, over harvest isn't one of them, or none of these agencies are saying it is." My point, and the point expressed by several others in this thread, is that your point if flat out wrong as regards these key western HC populations. Generally for most PS steelhead runs, your contention and citations about habitat degradation being limiting is correct. Now why the fvck can't you get it through your head that those limiting factors cannot possibly apply to certain HC rivers that have no urban, agricultural, or forest development due to having the preponderance of their watersheds inside the pristine Olympic National Park?

You won't find the answer to every fisheries question in the peer-reviewed literature or even non-peer-reviewed agency reports. Not all the salient information applicable to every fish population's condition ends up in a report or scientific article. That's all we've been saying in regards to these specific exceptions to the general cause for population decline, yet you continue to cite literature and reports that just flat out do not apply. You have persisted to the point of making yourself incredible and appearing stupid. A smarter person would acknowledge that they made a mistake and that general causes are general for the very reason that they generally apply, but don't necessarily apply to any and all examples. But you haven't been that person. You just keep clinging to evidence that does not apply? Why?

BTW, I know most of the authors on that IMW list. They wouldn't support your ill-conceived contention that habitat degradation caused these populations to collapse. That might be a clear and cogent reason why rivers in this thread are not a part of their report.

Sg