Employing every conceivable conservation measure is likely to yield a modest result - at best.
^If I read that how you intended it, that is a real doozy, SG. I certainly don't agree that the difference between "no conservation" vs. "every conceivable" measure would be "modest".
If WFC believes that by closing hatcheries, wild steelhead will recover to the level that supports meaningful fishing opportunity in Puget Sound, well, they missed the train.
Sg
The Skagit will likely be the test of this statement.
Sorry for the lack of clarity AP. What I meant is that by employing every feasible conservation tool in the box, the yield would be a modest increase in wild steelhead abundance.
The difference between current abundance and 1980s abundance is predominantly due to reduced marine survival, and very, very slightly due to continued degradation of freshwater habitat carrying capacity.
Since hatchery stocking on the Nisqually was discontinued, abundance has continued to decline, and that despite no targeted fishing since 1993. Cedar steelhead have increased, but not significantly - and the problems on the Cedar are more complex than anything like harvest and hatchery stocking. The showcase river, the Wind, has shown an increased abundance of wild steelhead, and it is likely significant, but I can't say how much of the increase is due to no hatchery stocking and imposition of no wild steelhead harvest. A similar increase looks to be happening on the EF Lewis also, but personally I think stopping the harvest of wild steelhead contributes more to the increase than discontinuing the stocking of hatchery fish? Why? Because when harvest restrictions on wild steelhead went into effect on most PS rivers, wild steelhead responded with increasing abundance, even though hatchery stocking continued at levels equal to, or greater than, occurs today.
Sg
Previous Topic
Index
