Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
Quote:
Simply not fishing would imply that harvest is the limiting factor for any particular stock, but this isn't really the case with many, if not most, stocks.


That is a interesting way to look at it. The fact is in our state most streams are managed to MSY which has zero to do with maximum seeding of a watershed in fact the low producing streams in most basins will go pretty much to token numbers of spawners and the moderate producing streams will hang on. The higher producing tribs in our state will then on average do OK. This only as to seeding but nothing as to the web of life that powers watersheds off of species interaction and nutrients the salmon life cycle provides.

Habitat is always critical with any living creature but with salmonids it is only one leg of the stool. With reduced productivity from human activity one must reduce harvest and not go down the road that we can rebuild habitat that took 200 years to screw up. Additionally the protection of streams that have had the least human impacts or access can be ( removing blockages ) restored should be of primary focus.

Regardless of all that until everyone stops deceiving themselves that harvest, in particular marine interception for Chinook, is not the driving force on the recent rapid decline of many stocks not much will change. When we get down to the last fish we can have a lotto as to gets to catch it and then run yelling down the road it is all the habitat.



There is not doubt that marine interception plays a part in the number of adults encountered in the terminal areas, but it would be a stretch to assume trollers, seiners and the drag fleet in AK are actually reducing our populations' potentials. What happens in AK and BC is B.S., unfair, and a severe issue with a blatant disregard for ESA regulation which WE, not they, must assume the consequences. I acknowledge there are serious catch reporting issues in AK and that they do an exceptional job of catching several fold more of our PNW chinook than we do. However, we cannot solely blame them for critically low numbers of chinook.

Am I defending overzealous harvest in AK and BC or here at home? Absolutely not. I strongly believe that the troll fishery in AK needs to end entirely. Alaska's adamant policy that all chinook in AK belong to them and ESA-listed stocks don't exist within their waters will eventually bite them in the rear, but I don't expect an iron fist policy change to come into play for many more years.

If or when this happens, it still will not solve the many identified problems we have at home preventing increasing population abundance. It won't solve a massive amount of habitat lost to flood control and development, it won't solve river scour issues, it won't remove dams, it won't prevent the PNW from eventually resembling the east coast, it won't resolve persistent pollution issues, and it won't resolve poor marine survival.

Salmon and steelhead recovery is a farce and it does nothing more than perpetuate the status quo. If recovery is going to happen, it will require a new approach to habitat rehabilitation and conservation, severe restrictions of land use and development, massive restrictions on agricultural and household and industrial chemicals, harvest restrictions north of us, and countless other actions policy makers don't have the nuts to enact. Until that happens, it always makes me cringe when people call for harvest and hatchery reforms at home, because only we as fishermen and advocates of these fish suffer the consequences while everything else impacting the fish keeps marching along.